Play and Pedagogy: A discourse on observational quality and how it affects provision

Early Years Specialist Assignment 610043344

Play andPedagogy:

A discourse onobservational qualityand how it affects

provision.

1


Introduction

Play is widely recognised as a leading context for a

child’s acquisition of communication and collaboration

skills (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009). Moyles (1989) defines

play as the situation when ‘children do their leaning’.

Play is when children have opportunities to express

their thoughts and emotions, to try out new things and

possibilities, to put elements of a situation together

in various ways, and to look at problems from different

viewpoints (Bruner, 1972).

Within the mixed Foundation Stage and Year 1 classroom,

and indeed the Year2 classroom, tensions have existed

for many years between the pedagogical traditions of

2


pre-school and the more formal curriculum framework of

primary school (Walsh, McGuinness, Sproule and Trew,

2010). The commitment to play in education settings

has always been strong on ideaology and rhetoric and

weak, or at least problematic, in practice (Bennett,

Wood and Rogers, 1997). An example of this

formalisation was the introduction of the Literacy and

Numeracy Hours (Department for Education and Employment

[DfEE], 1998) throughout primary classrooms. Wood and

Bennett (1999) characterise the formal approach as

being predominantly teacher-led, with the consequent

emphasis on literacy and numeracy, as detailed above.

However, early years education can be considered to be

from the ages of 3 to 8, and therefore play must be

considered to be developmentally appropriate within the

Key Stage 1 classroom. The Early Years Foundation

Stage was a policy move towards a more play-based and

developmentally appropriate styled approach to teaching

and learning in the early school years (Walsh et al.

2010). Indeed, the Curriculum Guidance for the

Foundation Stage (QCA/DfEE, 2000) demonstrates solid 3


principles for making connections between playing,

learning and teaching, and sets out a pedagogy of play

(Wood and Attfield, 2005). Depending on the

demographics and social background of children within a

classroom, many will, developmentally, still be working

within the Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum

throughout their Key Stage 1 career. Hence play, and

particularly free unstructured play, is required to

enable children to develop into healthy well adjusted

individuals.

Observations are the ‘foundation of education in the

early years’ (Hurst, 1991, p.70). Observations give

important information about children, what they are

capable of and what they are interested in that are not

readily available elsewhere. Even with the well

informed parent or carer, the behaviour a child

exhibits in an early years setting, whether in a pre-

school, Reception or Key Stage 1 class, can be

radically different to that exhibited in the home

environment. Observations formalise the link between

theory and practice, so practitioners are able to 4


demonstrate what they have learned about children

across all areas (Palaiologou, 2009). Hence, by

observing children the practitioner can focus on a

child’s natural behaviour in a given setting which is a

key process in assessing their development. This in

turn allows the recognition of the stage of a child’s

development. From this work the practitioner is able

to take responsibility for helping a child progress.

However, maintaining observations within a busy mixed

Reception/Year1 classroom brings new challenges. This

paper is concerned with the quality of observation

within such a class and the corresponding affect the

degree of quality has on learning outcomes and

progression. Quality indicators

The notion of quality with regard to observational

techniques largely seems to be avoided. My personal

experience of practitioners making observations has led

me to the conclusion that there is little if any

5


understanding of what quality is regarding

observations. So the notion of ‘quality’ is largely

avoided, as a definition is fraught with problems.

A dictionary definition (Chambers, 1983) states is

‘that which makes a thing what it is’. Moss and

Dahlberg (2008) state that ‘‘Quality’ is generally understood as an

attribute of services for young children that ensures the efficient

production of predefined, normative outcomes, typically developmental or

simple learning goals’. Wood and Attfield (2005, p. 42) state

‘The richness and quality of play can be evaluated in relation to how the

various elements are used and developed.’

This doesn’t actually give any definition at all,

rather there is the given that ‘quality’ is a

subjective belief. This is highly controversial in

that every individual has different expectations,

particularly for the children who they are responsible

for aiding their progression within the classroom.

Fortunately there are commonly held ‘markers’ of good

or quality practice that can be used within 6


observational techniques. These include meeting

individual needs, effective monitoring and tracking of

children’s progress and continuity within children’s

learning (Allen and Whalley, 2010).

To achieve quality observation it is necessary to

understand different observational methodologies and

forms of play within early childhood.

Observational methodology

Observations should be viewed as part of the daily

routine within the classroom. In this way the children

will be used to the practitioner sitting near, making

notes whilst they play. Another way to ensure the

practitioner is able to observe undisturbed is for the

practitioner to either wear a hat or other distinctive

item of clothing that the children recognise as being a

sign of work in progress. As Pratt (1994, p. 102)

states ‘observation is unobtrusively woven into the classroom activity

and interaction.’ Observations, as a purposeful tool,

7


should focus on children’s development and learning,

and be reflected upon on a daily basis.

The ‘Te Whaariki’ curriculum of New Zealand integrates

observations into everyday life. This multicultural

learning environment is underpinned by the five goals

of well-being, belonging, contribution, communication

and exploration. Observations look at the behaviours

that are important to the development of children as

effective learners; Carr (2001) stresses the importance

of children obtaining these behaviours.

8


Observational skills

One of the key skills required to produce quality

observations is that of objectivity. The practitioner

needs to record what actually occurs and not what he or

she perceives to be happening (Palaiologou, 2009).

Secondly, the practitioner needs to disassociate him or

herself from their personal values and beliefs. When

recording observations, the practitioner has to make an

informed decision when or not to interfere with the

activity the child is involved with. Often such a

decision is driven by the practitioner’s own emotional

response, which is often not a conscious decision. As

Willan (2007, p. 109) argues: ‘Both child and observer come

with their own load of emotional baggage. The child being observed or

assessed has feelings, as do parents, carers and educators around him/her

– and so, of course, does the observer. It is important to be aware of the

emotional dimension of the observational context, and to try to take it into

account as part of the assessment process.’

9


Hence the process of becoming a skilled observer is

challenging, with many complexities. It is vital to be

a reflective practitioner when assessing observations

and planning for a child’s progression. This needs to

be an ongoing process in order to record rich,

relevant, quality observations that fulfill their

roles.

10


Forms of play within early childhood

Piaget (1962) defined three categories and stages of

play: practice play (six months to two years, based on

physical activities); symbolic play (two to six years)

based on pretend and fantasy play; games with rules

(six to seven years and upwards). However, Meadows

(1993) challenges Piaget’s ideas about ‘ages and

stages’, arguing that the development of performance is

age-related, but only stage-like by being

discontinuous, cohesive or even across tasks requires

stronger evidence than is available in most areas.

Smilansky (1990) added a fourth category of

constructive play characterised by the manipulation of

objects to build or create something.

Smilansky also questioned Piaget’s play categories

suggesting that both dramatic and socio-dramatic play

develop in parallel to other forms of play. There are

considered to be six elements to these forms of social

play activity, clearly familiar to and readily observed

by practitioners. They are role play by imitation, 11


make-believe with objects, make-believe with actions

and situations, persistence in the role play,

interaction and verbal communication. This form of

play is complex, relying on previously acquired play

skills and play knowledge. Children use

metacommunicative and metacognitive skills and

processes as they step in and out of play to clarify,

maintain, negotiate and direct social and pretend play

(Sawyer, 2003).

Further evidence to support the educational

significance of different forms of play was mooted by

Broadhead (2004), with the development of the Social

Play Continuum (SPC). Broadhead focused on children’s

language, sociability and cooperation, during a

collaborative study with early years teachers. The SPC

has four domains: 1. Associative; 2. Social; 3. Highly

Social; 4. Cooperative. The SPC is based on sustained

observations, enabling practitioners to enhance their

understanding of the play they are witnessing, and how

these can be interpreted within curriculum frameworks,

12


whether that be the Early Years Foundation Stage or the

National Curriculum.

Research Methodology

Context

The school the study took place in is a smaller than

average Church of England primary school with 66

children on the register. It is a rural school in

state of transition with no clear leadership for two

years. In January 2012 a new Executive Head Teacher

was appointed who also has the Headship of another

small rural school four miles away. The school is

housed in the original Victorian building, with mixed

private and council housing around it. There are three

classes, with the main feeder nursery built adjacent to

the Reception classroom. The Reception classroom is

housed in an extension, with a further cloakroom

extension. There is a dedicated outdoor area for the

Reception classroom with a small garden, fenced off

from the main playground. 13


14


Collection of data To undertake this small scale research, observations

were taken over a period of eight weeks, beginning in

January 2012 in a mixed Reception/Year 1 class, with

one Year 2 child with severe dyslexia. At the time of

the research there were 20 children in the class, with

a new Year 1 child starting in the class in January.

There were nine Reception children, three boys and six

girls; ten Year 1 children, six boys and four girls;

and the single Year 2 child.

Three focus children were chosen to observe. They are

all in Year 1 and were chosen in discussion with the

class teacher, with the aim to represent the diversity

of the Reception/Year 1 classroom in terms of age,

gender, ability range, language, ethnic background and

culture.

As a result one girl and two boys were chosen. Child F

(female, age 6) was placed in the higher ability group

for literacy and numeracy; Child J (male, age 6) was

15


placed in the middle ability group for numeracy and

literacy; Child M (male, age 6) was also placed in the

middle ability group but, was significantly less able,

academically, than Child J.

The class primarily engaged in free play throughout the

day, so this was the focus of the observations. Two

observations per week, over the eight weeks of initial

teacher training practice, were made for each child.

Whilst most observations were purely the written record

of what happened, some interaction between the child

and I was recorded. Over the eight weeks these

observations built up a valuable record of assessment

of the individual children concerned. The consequent

developing case studies were useful as an exploratory

tool (Soy, 1997).

Ethical considerations

In order to adhere to ethical standards, it is a

requirement that researchers not put participants in a

situation where they might be at risk of harm 16


(Williams, 2006). All research should guarantee the

participant’s confidentiality is maintained. In

accordance with these considerations, the names of the

three profile children were changed to maintain

anonymity.

Methodological framework

The observational framework I have chosen to use is the

Social Play Continuum by Broadhead (2004). Having

observed whole class play, quality observation of

social play needed to be undertaken to understand the

cultural background the focus children had come from.

Expectations of the children within the classroom were

low, with the class agreement or ‘Golden Rules’

constantly ignored with few reminders given.

Analysis of Observations

Each observation took place either in the cloakroom

extension, where nearly all the resources were housed,

or within the classroom. Usually the flow of movement 17


was between the two areas although detailed tracking

observation was not noted.

Observation 1: Child F

Child F (age 6) is a bright sociable, talkative child

who is aware that she finds the academic work she is

expected to do easier than many of her cohort. She is

the only child in the family and has supportive parents

who are keen for her to progress. Attendance is good.

She enjoys attending Library Club after school. The

observation, shown in Appendix 1, took place on a

Thursday morning in January, after a numeracy input

before lunch.

On analysing Child F’s observation it became apparent

that there were three areas of interest. F immediately

ran to the role play area to engage a fellow member of

her ability group. The theme for the term was space

and the role play area had been made into a spaceship,

complete with ship’s logs on clipboards.

18


F enters space ship and picks up a small clip board

with a list attached to it.

Asks B ‘What have you wrote on there?’

B responds ‘I’ve got a list of what we need.’

B shows F his list.

F turns away and scribbles on the list (no recognisable

words are written).

Turns back to B and thrusts the clipboard in front of

him. B has to back away.

F says as she does this ‘I can do more than that, look!’

B walks out of the role play area.

F did not look troubled by this turn of events. She

appeared to be rather surprised her class mate had left

the role play area. Although there were other Year 1

boys playing near her, she showed no inclination to

extend her play.

Indeed she next went to the home corner to join two

Reception girls who were playing babies.

F says ‘You be the babies, I’ll give you food.’

19


GG comply and pretend to cry. F takes a toy bottle and

a spoon and attempts to feed both girls at the same

time.

F says ‘You need a bedtime story now.’ Selects a simple book and

reads it aloud to them. Both girls begin to giggle.

F says ‘Shut up and listen!’

This time F was obviously annoyed with the girls, shown

by her facial expression, and leaves the home corner.

The third area of interest followed whereby she engaged

in purposeful constructive play to make a shaker.

After gathering the necessary equipment she works

independently on her own although is happy for a

Reception girl to join her, where they work side by

side in silence. When she puts down the scissors,

Child J picks them up and wanders away with them. R

runs over and snatches them back.

JDC (observing adult) ‘F, you don’t need to snatch, ask for them back

politely please.’

F says ‘I want them back please, they are mine.’

20


J happily hands the scissors back.

On completion of the shaker F tries to show other

children what she has made but fails to elicit any

response.

Production of shakers by F appeared to be her ‘default’

activity when she was unable to engage others in play

that she wished to lead. During the eight week

observation period she made at least five such objects,

spending a sustained period of time doing so. On this

one occasion she spent twenty minutes thoroughly

engaged in the task.

On analysing this observation using the SPC, F was

placed within the Social Domain. Although she wished

to play collaboratively, her desire to lead play

effectively distanced herself from those class mates.

Parents and carers are the child’s first co-players,

and invest a great deal of time being playful, teaching

children how to play, and teaching children through

play (Gopnik, Meltzoff and Kuhl, 1999).

21


I was troubled by the repetitive play Child F

exhibited, and the degree of social interaction

exhibited by the class. Although the growing child

must learn to compromise if he or she is to engage with

others (Broadhead, 2004), this needs to work on a

reciprocal arrangement of which I saw no evidence. Observation 2: Child J

Child J (age 6) has an older sister in Year 5 at the

same school, and a younger sister aged two and a half.

He lives with his mother and his mother’s partner who

are in a same sex relationship. He has no contact with

his father, although he and his older sister have the

same father. His mother and her partner have been in

this relationship for some time, with the subsequent

child being conceived through a sperm donor. He is

very talkative and enjoys sharing any news he has with

adults in the classroom. He enjoys academic work. He

likes to make his peers laugh. Attendance is good.

Child J enjoys outdoor sport and attends the after

school football coaching.

22


This observation, shown in Appendix 2, took place on a

Tuesday afternoon in February, after a phonics input.

J has enthusiastically taken part in the lesson and has

been engaged throughout.

J was interesting to observe as he was very astute and

knew whenever I was watching his play. A conversation

was had with him where I explained that I was ‘learning

lots I needed to learn to be a teacher’ from watching

all the children play. After any period of observation

he often asked me ‘what have you learnt today?’

J immediately goes to get the box of Lego out from the

cloakroom extension and brings it into the carpet area

of the classroom. He is surrounded by five boys, two

Reception and three Year 1.

J says ‘Noooooooooooooo, it’s mine, leave me alone!’ swinging the

box away from the other children.

JDC (observing adult) says ‘J give me the box please as somebody

is going to get hurt. You can all play with the Lego, let me put it on the

carpet.’

23


J says ‘Nooooo, that’s not fair, I want to play with it!’

He then lies on the floor crying and kicking his legs.

J needed time by himself to control and understand his

feelings. Once he had succeeded in calming down he was

able to play with his classmates, negotiating and

swapping Lego pieces.

J makes a spaceship out of the Lego.

With two Year1 boys he is running from the classroom to

the cloakroom extension. In the doorway, J collides

with a Reception boy who falls heavily and begins to

cry.

J says ‘Sorry, are you OK?’ B cries as JDC comforts him.

J begins to cry ‘I said sorry!’ J and B both stop crying, J

looks at him and says to B ‘Come on, let’s go and make a Moon

Buggy!’

B says ‘Great idea, come on!’

Upon reflection I would place J in the Social Domain of

the SPC, with elements of the Highly Social Domain.

His actions in the first part of the observation were 24


to be expected from a child whose social and emotional

development did not meet the expected criteria for his

age. However, J displayed remarkable empathy for the

boy he inadvertently hurt. Much reciprocal language

and action was recorded. Indeed, this incident began

a friendship that previously did not exist. Early

friendships are an important part of social

understanding and communicative intelligence (Faulkner

and Miell, 1993).

Observation 3: Child M

Child M (age 6) lives with his parents and younger

brother next door to the school. He is very quiet,

even amongst his peers. He finds academic work quite

challenging and needs encouragement to complete tasks.

Attendance is good. He enjoys being outdoors and takes

part in the after school football coaching.

The observation, shown in Appendix 3, took place on a

Monday afternoon in January immediately after lunch.

25


Free flow to the outdoor environment is offered. The

playground is of hardstanding and has a builders tray

containing sand and plastic dinosaurs, and a number of

tractor tyres with the inside containing water from the

recent rain.

Child M is by himself at the crouching down by the

builder’s tray. He is collecting the dinosaurs and

placing them in a pile of sand he has formed.

Year 1 boy comes to the tray and says ‘M, can I have the big

spiky one?’

M says nothing but puts the spiky dinosaur behind his

back, without looking at B. B says ‘You’ve got to share!’

M puts the spiky dinosaur on the sand, stands up, looks

at B and then walks away.

Although M appears to understand shared play, as he

gave the dinosaur up, he is uncomfortable or unwilling

to actively pursue such social play.

M is sitting on one of the tractor tyres with a Year1

boy. They are looking inside the tyres.

26


B says ‘Look M, there’s a car!’ B reaches in to retrieve the

car. M moves so he can see in the tyre.

B says ‘There’s another one!’

M smiles and says ‘Get them out, get them out!’

B retrieves the car and shouts to the other boys on the

playground ‘Look what I found!’

Three boys run to the tyres and start looking inside

them. M laughs and moves to a different tyre, and

looks in it.

M doesn’t find anything so he sits on the tyre smiling,

while the other boys keep searching.

Although Broadhead (2004) advocates a participant form

of observation, with M I chose the non-participant form

(Palaiologou, 2009). Even though it is imperative to

leave pre-conceived ideas and personal emotions aside,

as discussed previously, there is also the necessity to

understand when to become involved. Therefore, it is

vital to have a good knowledge of the children you are

observing to gain an insight into their development and

attributes. 27


Both these play activities occurred on the same day

within a short period of each other. M would be placed

within the Associative Domain of the SPC, with many of

the elements of the Social Domain. Child M watches

others at play, and as his development continues and

confidence grows, expectations are that he will feel

more comfortable joining in collaborative play. That

is, if he is given the right conditions of course –

socially and cooperatively (Broadhead, 2004).

Conclusion

Within this mixed Reception/Year 1 class, I observed

over the eight weeks repetitive behaviours amongst all

three focus children. Whilst not in itself an issue –

one could argue that schemas were being explored

(Featherstone, 2009) – I saw no evidence of schematic

behaviour. Looking at the provision for the children

and the ethos within the class itself, that also

pervaded the whole school, it has become clear to me

that this is what needs to be addressed. As Broadhead 28


(2004, p. 63) states ‘if the play seems a little

repetitive, think about the whether it’s the resources

that are limiting or perhaps the location.’ Although

it may be difficult to change the location to any great

extent, with a creative approach to changing the way a

space operates, great improvements in provision can be

made. Adults are responsible for choosing and storing

materials and resources, based on their knowledge of

child development and individual children’s interests

and abilities. In order to support children’s

exploration in play, a wide range of materials should

be made available, including those that are familiar,

novel, natural and open-ended (Santer and Griffiths

2007).

Children are highly adaptable and imaginative, but to

produce a true play based pedagogical environment

within an early years classroom, it needs to be

structured in some form. Free play is rarely totally

free. At best it allows a child to explore a facet of

the world that they have an interest in; at worst it

ignores the child’s needs entirely. This structure 29


needs to be based on children’s existing experiences,

building on what they already know within the context

of their family and cultural backgrounds.

Choosing to observe within the Social Play Continuum,

and the quality of the observations I have made, has

enabled me to cast a reflective and critical eye over

provision made within this classroom. Children with

social and emotional problems will always be evident in

the classroom. However, it is our role, as

professional practitioners to ensure that we facilitate

children’s learning in the best way possible.

Reflection

I came to the PGCE course from an Ofsted graded ‘good’

pre-school, where I had achieved Early Years

Professional Status in 2010. This gave me a good

grounding for the issues that have arisen during this

year. Leading staff that did not share the same drive

and enthusiasm as me was disheartening and

demoralising. The PGCE has given me this drive back, 30


although it has produced a roller coaster of emotions

and a questioning of my own ability as an educator.

However, over the last two terms I have deepened my

understanding and consolidated my knowledge regarding,

not only early years education, but primary education

as a whole. Lectures and seminars from the taught part

of the course have given me the confidence, and

reassurance (!) that my subject knowledge, in all

subjects, not only the three core subjects of Literacy,

Numeracy and Science, is more than sufficient. I am

also confident enough to admit to a class that ‘I don’t

know’, which in turn empowers all individuals to be

allowed to express the same view. I feel now I am in

the best possible position to continue this journey

with my own Reception or Key Stage 1 class.

I found the teaching practice to be particularly

difficult. The actual teaching was not an issue,

moreover the class and whole school ethos as referred

to in the body of the paper. This has made completing

directed tasks and consequently this paper very

challenging. I have always had high expectations of 31


any person I teach, whether it be teaching horse riding

to adults or children, or working on a shared activity

at pre-school. To be placed in an environment where

expectations were mediocre for some children and non-

existent for others was distressing to say the least.

However, the presence of a placement partner kept us

both sane over the Spring Term. Of course, through

this experience, I questioned my personal practice.

Carrying out the observations made me feel vindicated

that I am facilitating children’s learning by having

high expectations, but it has also made me take a step

back and think carefully about provision I will provide

within play based learning. All children need to play,

but if the play is not purposeful or repetitive day in

and day out, what learning is taking place? (There is

also the dilemma of giving ‘purposeful play’ a

definition.)

I have reflected constantly throughout my career about

how to improve my practice: Was a criticism fair?,

Could I have done that better?, How would I do it next

time? To me, this is a common sense approach and one I32


will certainly take into my own pedagogical ethos.

What the PGCE has enabled me to do is to justify and

defend my actions to others with the confidence that I

have considered all the possibilities. Of course, I

constantly ask for constructive criticism and evaluate

and reflect on any that I am given.

In summary, the PGCE has made me re-evaluate my

previous learning and made me think deeper into the

process of educating future generations. I have a

sound knowledge of recent policy and practice,

alongside new policies and practices. I also have

little knowledge of the proposed revision of the

National Curriculum, along with everybody else!

However, this can only serve to allow me to continue to

reflect on every learning opportunity I provide in

future years in my forthcoming career.

33


Appendices

Appendix 1

Observation : Child F

January 29 2012

11.10am: Enters role play where a space ship has been

made.

F enters space ship and picks up a small clip board

with a list attached to it.

Asks B ‘What have you wrote on there?’

B responds ‘I’ve got a list of what we need.’

B shows F his list.

F turns away and scribbles on the list (no recognisable

words are written).

Turns back to B and thrusts the clipboard in front of

him. B has to back away.34


F says as she does this ‘I can do more than that, look!’

B walks out of the role play area.

11.20am F moves to the home corner and sits next to

two Reception girls.

F says ‘You be the babies, I’ll give you food.’

GG comply and pretend to cry. F takes a toy bottle and

a spoon and attempts to feed both girls at the same

time.

F says ‘You need a bedtime story now.’ Selects a simple book and

reads it aloud to them. Both girls begin to giggle.

F says ‘Shut up and listen!’

The two Reception girls continue to giggle.

11.40am F gets up from the home corner and walks to

the making table.

After gathering the necessary equipment she works

independently on her own although is happy for a

Reception girl to join her, where they work side by

side in silence. When she puts down the scissors,

Child J picks them up and wanders away with them. R

runs over and snatches them back.

35


JDC (observing adult) ‘F, you don’t need to snatch, ask for them back

politely please.’

F says ‘I want them back please, they are mine.’

J happily hands the scissors back.

On completion of the shaker F tries to show other

children what she has made but fails to elicit any

response.

She sees me watching her and shows me her shaker.

F says ‘Look what I made.’

She then told me exactly how she had made it.

11.59am Observation ends.

Appendix 2

Observation: Child J

February 7 2012

1.30pm

J immediately goes to get the box of Lego out from the

cloakroom extension and brings it into the carpet area

of the classroom. He is surrounded by five boys, two

Reception and three Year 1.

36


J says ‘Noooooooooooooo, it’s mine, leave me alone!’ swinging the

box away from the other children.

JDC (observing adult) says ‘J give me the box please as somebody

is going to get hurt. You can all play with the Lego, let me put it on the

carpet.’

J says ‘Nooooo, that’s not fair, I want to play with it!’

He then lies on the floor crying and kicking his legs.

1.42pm

J moves to the home corner and sits down with his arms

crossed. Reception girl attempts to talk to him ‘Look

at this book.’

J says ‘No, go away. Leave me alone!’

G ignores him and sits down next to him. J leaves home

corner and sits under the coats hanging in the

cloakroom.

1.49pm

J walks into the classroom and begins to play with

Lego. He does not talk to any other boys.

J makes a spaceship out of the Lego.

With two Year1 boys he is running from the classroom to

the cloakroom extension. In the doorway, J collides 37


with a Reception boy who falls heavily and begins to

cry.

J says ‘Sorry, are you OK?’ B cries as JDC comforts him.

J begins to cry ‘I said sorry!’ J and B both stop crying, J

looks at him and says to B ‘Come on, let’s go and make a Moon

Buggy!’

B says ‘Great idea, come on!’

2.10pm Observation ends.

Appendix 3

Observation: Child M

January 16 2012

1pm Child M is by himself at the crouching down by the

builder’s tray. He is collecting the dinosaurs and

placing them in a pile of sand he has formed.

Year 1 boy comes to the tray and says ‘M, can I have the big

spiky one?’

M says nothing but puts the spiky dinosaur behind his

back, without looking at B. B says ‘You’ve got to share!’

38


M puts the spiky dinosaur on the sand, stands up, looks

at B and then walks away.

1.10pm M wanders around the around the playground

looking at the other children playing. He does not

approach any other children, nor do other children try

to engage him in any play or activity.

1.19pm M is sitting on one of the tractor tyres with a

Year1 boy. They are looking inside the tyres.

B says ‘Look M, there’s a car!’ B reaches in to retrieve the

car. M moves so he can see in the tyre.

B says ‘There’s another one!’

M smiles and says ‘Get them out, get them out!’

B retrieves the car and shouts to the other boys on the

playground ‘Look what I found!’

Three boys run to the tyres and start looking inside

them. M laughs and moves to a different tyre, and

looks in it.

M doesn’t find anything so he sits on the tyre smiling,

while the other boys keep searching.

1.41pm Observation ends.

39


References

40


Allen, A. and Whalley. M. E. (2010). Supporting Pedagogyand Practice in Early Years Settings. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Bennett, W., Wood, L., Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching through play: Teachers’ Thinking and Classroom Practice. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Broadhead, P. (2004). Early Years Play and Learning: DevelopingSocial Skill and Cooperation. London: Routledge Farmer.

Bruner, J. (1972). Early childhood education. London: Hodderand Stoughton.

Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in Early Childhood Settings.London: Sage.

Department for Education and Employment. (1998). The National Literacy Strategy. London: DfEE.

Faulker, D. and Miell, D. (1993). Settling intoschool: the importance of early friendships for thedevelopment of children’s social understanding andcommunicative competence. International Journal of Early YearsEducation. 1, 23-45.

Featherstone, S (ed). (2009). Again! Again! Understandingschemas in young children. London: A & C Black PublishersLimited.

Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. and Kulh, P. (1999). HowBabies Think. Phoenix.

41


Wood, E.A. and Attfield, J. (2005). Play, Learning and theEarly Childhood Curriculum. London: Chapman.

Hurst, V. (1991). Planning for early learning. London: ChapmanPublishing.

Kirkpatrick, E. M. (ed). (1983). Chambers 20th CenturyDictionary. Edinburgh:Chaucer Press.

Meadows, S. (1993). The Child as a Thinker. London: Routledge.

Moss, P., Dahlberg, G. (2008). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Core Languages in Education. New Zealand Journal of Teacher’s Work. Vol 5. Issue 1.3-12.

Moyles, J. (1989). Just Playing? The Role and Status of Play in Early Childhood Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Palaiologou, I. (2009). Childhood Observation. Exeter:Learning Matters.Piaget, J. (1962). Play dreams, and imitation in childhood.New York: Norton.

Pratt, D. (1994). Curriculum planning: a handbook for professionals. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2000). Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. London: QCA/DfEE.

42


Sawyer, R., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Feldman, D. (Eds.). (2003). Creativity and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Santer, J., Griffiths, C. (2007). http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120426/free-play-in- early-childhood.pdf . Accessed 15 April 2012.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Coceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early childhood education: A Vygotskian perspective. Educational and Child Psychology. Vol.26. No. 2.

Smilansky, S., Klugman, E. (Eds.) (1990). Children’s Play and Learning: Perspectives and Policy Implications. New York: Teachers College Pres

Soy, S. K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at Austin. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ethics.php. Accessed 15 April 2012.

Walsh, G.M., McGuiness, C., Sproule, L., Trew, K. (2010). Implementing a play-based and developmentally appropriate curriculum in Northern Island primary schools: what lessons have we learned? Early Years. Vol. 30, No. 1 March, 53-66.

Willan, J., Parker-Ress, R., Savage, J. (Eds). (2007).Early Childhood Studies. Exeter: Learning Matters.

43

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ethics.php

http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120426/free-play-in-early-childhood.pdf

http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120426/free-play-in-early-childhood.pdf


Williams, M. K. (2006). http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/. Accessed 15 April 2012.

Wood, E. and Bennett, N. (1999). Progression and continuity in early childhood education: Tensions and contradictions. International Journal of Early Years Education 7. No. 11: 5-16.

44

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/

Play and Pedagogy: A discourse on observational quality and how it affects provision

Documents

Transcript of Play and Pedagogy: A discourse on observational quality and how it affects provision