This article was downloaded by: [University of Maine - Orono]On: 21 October 2013, At: 05:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Research in Childhood

EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Preschool Teachers' Views of Active Play

Mary Ellin Logue a & Hattie Harvey ba University of Maine , Orono, Maine, USAb University of Denver , Denver, Colorado, USAPublished online: 31 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Mary Ellin Logue & Hattie Harvey (2009) Preschool Teachers' Views of Active Play,Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24:1, 32-49, DOI: 10.1080/02568540903439375

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540903439375

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24: 32–49, 2010Copyright © Association for Childhood Education InternationalISSN: 0256-8543 print / 2150-2641 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02568540903439375

UJRC0256-85432150-2641Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, Nov 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Research in Childhood Education Preschool Teachers’ Views of Active PlayPreschool Teachers’ Views of Active PlayLogue and Harvey Mary Ellin Logue

University of Maine, Orono, Maine

Hattie HarveyUniversity of Denver, Denver, Colorado

This study surveyed 98 teachers of 4-year-olds about dramatic play in their classrooms and abouttheir attitudes and practices about rough-and-tumble play. Gender differences emerged in the natureof dramatic play reported and in the ways in which teachers interacted with children engaged indifferent forms of dramatic play. Teachers also reported their coursework in early childhood educa-tion as the greatest influence on their beliefs and attitudes about rough-and-tumble play. The find-ings have implications for curriculum planning, school behavior policies, and teacher educationprograms.

Keywords: play, prekindergarten teachers, early childhood education

Four-year-olds are entering school in the United States in record numbers. Currently, 39 statesserve more than a million children in state-supported prekindergarten (pre-K) programs (Barnett,Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2005). Public support for pre-K comes from many fronts. First,advances in understanding the impact of early experiences on brain development and school-ing have prompted public interest in early schooling (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Second,research findings clearly suggest that high-quality pre-K experiences can benefit children,particularly those children considered to be at risk for school failure (Barnett et al., 2005), andhigh-quality programs save money for taxpayers through fewer grade retentions, fewer specialeducation placements, less delinquency, and lower incarceration rates for adolescents andadults (F. A. Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002; Lally, Mangione, &Honig, 1988; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). Third, pre-K is seen as a tool for increasingequity among children, ensuring that children enter kindergarten with the skills they need tosucceed in school (Gormley, Grayer, Phillips, & Dawson, 2005; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel,2007).

The public attitude toward early learning has shifted. It is now accepted that all children canlearn, not only those from privileged homes (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2008). Standards-based instruction and school accountability assume that, regardless of family circumstance,

Submitted July 3, 2008; accepted February 16, 2009.Address correspondence to Mary Ellin Logue, Child Development and Family Relations, Early Childhood Development,

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. E-mail: Mary_Logue@umit.maine.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 33

children can achieve. Program assessments suggest that children are learning academic skillseven if behavioral challenges remain (Zill, Sorongon, & Kim, 2003). State standards for pre-Kreflect a focus on learning specific skills, particularly related to early literacy over social skills(Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2006). Although play, particularly pretend play, is regarded as avaluable tool for promoting early literacy (Bennett-Armistead, Duke, & Moses, 2005; Spodek &Saracho, 2006), curricula in many programs focus more on the teaching of isolated skills relatedto reading and math than on play, the traditional tool of early childhood education (Neuman,2006). The consequences of these choices are not yet clear.

The changing nature of pre-K may be affecting boys and girls differently. Although the activitylevel of 4-year-olds is higher than that of older children (DiPietro, 1981), there are gender differ-ences among the 4-year-olds, particularly when they play with same-gender peers. Girls whoplay with other girls are less active than boys and often choose to play in areas close to adults.Boys playing with other boys are more aggressive in their play and tend to play farther awayfrom adults (Martin & Fabes, 2001). Observational and biological studies show that the level ofphysical activity among boys is higher than among girls (Fromel, Stelzer, Groffik, & Ernest,2008; Pellegrini, 2002). As 4-year-olds enter public schools in increasing numbers, discussionsabout what children should learn must be coupled with discussions of how they should be taughtto help boys and girls be equally successful. The purpose of the current study is to explore pre-Kteachers’ ideas about the role of dramatic play, a traditional component of early childhood cur-riculum. Embedded in this research question is an exploration of teachers’ attitudes and prac-tices toward rough-and-tumble play, the form of active dramatic play most often favored byyoung boys.

BOYS IN PREKINDERGARTEN

Boys are falling behind girls in achievement and surpassing girls in terms of special educationplacements (Rathbun & West, 2004). “Young boys are spending more time in highly structuredexperiences and are not achieving, even with the weight of state and national educationalreform. . . . For the most part, boy problems have not become part of the national discourse oneducation” (Tyre, 2008, p. 7). Only recently has public attention turned to the struggles of boysand the implications for society (Riley & Jones, 2007). As academic expectations becomehigher, pressure for focused attention and achievement increases among teachers and parents.Although all pre-K children have the capacity to learn, not all pre-K children have an equalcapacity to sit quietly and learn. The gender gap in achievement begins early, as reflected by astudy on pre-K expulsion (Gilliam, 2005) showing that boys were expelled at a rate 4.5% higherthan that of girls. (Most of the expulsions were for behavioral reasons.) It is unclear from thisstudy whether the curriculum had an impact on children expelled in the Gilliam study or how theteachers defined the challenging behavior underlying the expulsions. As yet, few studies investi-gate whether female teachers remove themselves from boys’ active play. When Logue and Shel-ton (2008) actively engaged children’s interest in “bad guy” play, rather than stopping orignoring it, children increased their levels of conversation and writing. Pellegrini and Smith(1988) suggested that the scant extant research on children’s high levels of physical activityreflects adult ambivalence about the role of such play in learning and development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

34 LOGUE AND HARVEY

ACTIVE, PRETEND PLAY AND CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT

During the preschool years, active, physical play peaks at around age 4 and often co-occurs withpretend play (MacDonald & Parke, 1986). From infancy, boys are more physically active thanare girls (D. W. Campbell & Eaton, 1999; Fromel et al., 2008; Maccoby, 1974; Martin & Fabes,2001; Whiting & Edwards, 1988), and boys’ play is more vigorous, often co-occurring with playfighting and superhero themes (Holland, 2003; Pellegrini & Perlmutter, 1987). Active, physicalpretend play involving such activities as running, chasing, climbing, playfully wrestling, grabbing,kicking, and tumbling constitutes almost one fourth of children’s behavior (McGrew, 1972;Smith & Connolly, 1980). The term rough-and-tumble play was originally used to describe theplay fighting, chasing, and wrestling in rhesus monkeys (Harlow & Harlow, 1965) and waspicked up by ethologists to describe a type of human juvenile play.

A recent study examining preschool boys’ play failed to find differences in physical and ver-bal aggression between children playing with superhero toys and those playing with other toys(Parsons & Howe, 2006). The boys in this study incorporated weapons into their play, with orwithout the prompt of superhero toys. The authors suggested that superhero play may be a sub-category of rough-and-tumble play and not a separate category. For purposes of the currentstudy, the definition of rough-and-tumble play used by the ethologists was expanded to includesuperhero play. Based on a comprehensive literature review and the scale development process,as suggested by DeVellis (2003), rough-and-tumble play in the current study was defined assuperhero play, play fighting (including wrestling), chase games, and protect/rescue games.

Rough-and-tumble play has been observed in all animal species as well as in humans (Fry,2005). Although its exact function is debated, it is unlikely that rough-and-tumble play would beso widespread if it was not adaptive from an evolutionary perspective. It allows individuals toexplore social boundaries, to practice and test their level of strength, and to determine agilityand social placement in the group. It also allows children to develop and practice restraint asthey pretend to be aggressive.

Rough-and-tumble play differs from real aggression in many key ways. Threat is absent,smiles and play faces are evident, roles reverse, and children of different sizes and dominancelevels play together (Fry, 2005). Among children younger than age 8, aggressive signals rarelyco-occur during the same interaction (Fry, 1987; Smith & Lewis, 1985). Children remain in eachother’s company after a bout of rough-and-tumble play, but separate after an aggressive episode(Smith & Lewis, 1985). Rough-and-tumble play also typically involves more than two children,reflecting a willingness or even an eagerness to allow others to join (Fry, 1987). According tothe noted ethnologist and anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1972), rough-and-tumble play helpschildren develop symbolic thinking and metacommunication. Children learn the differencebetween a “nip” and a “bite” through play, important distinctions between behaviors that seemsimilar. It is through such play, according to Piaget (1965), that children appreciate games withrules and learn about justice. Children learn about their personal limits and the impact of theirbehavior on others. Much of this learning is nonverbal, and adults do not direct it. Some childrenfail to make distinctions between play fighting and real fighting. The inability to differentiatesubtleties in others’ social behavior contributes to social risk (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Pellegrini,1988).

Children can differentiate between episodes of rough-and-tumble play and aggression (Costabileet al., 1991; Smith, Smees, & Pellegrini, 2004). When asked why they play fight, the boys

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 35

responded, “Because it’s fun.” Most play-fighting partners are friends (85%), and half are bestfriends (Smith et al., 2004; Smith, Smees, Pellegrini, & Menesini, 2002).

Researchers have noted benefits to rough-and-tumble play in the early childhood classroom(French & Pena, 1991; Holland, 2003; Logue & Shelton, 2008). This type of play allows chil-dren to practice skills in a play setting that are not possible to duplicate in the “real world.” Italso allows children to begin to distinguish between aggression and play. Schafer and Smith(1996) estimated that approximately only 1% of all pretend play develops into real aggression.Of that 1%, 75% of episodes were among children who were socially marginalized or who hadpreviously demonstrated aggressive tendencies. For children who lack language skills, rough-and-tumble play can be an entry to social play. Comparing popular and unpopular children, Coieand Kupersmidt (1983) found that both groups of children engaged in rough-and-tumble play atsimilar frequencies. The difference is not in the frequency of the play, but rather in how otherchildren perceived the experience. Pellegrini (1988) noted that the popular children saw theinteraction as playful, whereas the unpopular children perceived it as aggressive. For the unpop-ular children, the play did escalate into aggression. Pellegrini argued that the likelihood ofrough-and-tumble play turning into aggression was high only for unpopular children. For popularchildren, this form of play contributed to increased social competence, reciprocal role taking,flexibility, and problem solving. The benefits to rough-and-tumble and superhero play are clearfor popular children. Because boys engage in rough-and-tumble play more often than girls do,this avenue to social competence among boys may be different than the route taken by girls.

TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE PLAY

Although studies looking at gender differences in children’s play were common in the 1980s, theyare less frequent now. Beverly Fagot’s play study (1985) suggested that though preschool teachersreinforce quiet, “feminine” behavior and not rough-and-tumble play, it did not stop boys fromengaging in it. Humphreys and Smith (1984) noted tremendous variation in how much preschoolspermitted, accepted, or banned rough-and-tumble play. While seeking schools in which to conductresearch, they found some head teachers viewing rough-and-tumble play as harmless and fun andwere happy to include it as long as no one was hurt, whereas others saw all behavior that appearedto be aggressive as truly aggressive. Heaton (cited by Humphreys & Smith, 1984) showed video-tapes of rough-and-tumble play and episodes of aggression to 4-year-olds and adults. Although thechildren and adults agreed to a significant degree about the playful aspects of rough-and-tumble,one teacher used her own knowledge of children to make a judgment and achieved comparativelylow levels of agreement with the children. Heaton believed this was because the teacher wasunable to concede that play-fighting encounters between certain children were playful.

Educators are taking a new interest in the challenges that boys are facing in school (Garbarino,2000; Katch, 2001; Kindlon & Thompson, 2000; Tyre, 2008) and, as such, are viewing rough-and-tumble play as a legitimate and valuable way for boys to interact. However, this sentimentis not widely shared in schools, as reflected by the comment, “Most educators don’t considerthat they need to fix the environment that these boys are learning in. . . . They’d rather try to fixthe boy” (Tyre, 2008, p. 81).

Zero tolerance of rough-and-tumble play was historically supported based on the belief of aconnection between children’s early involvement in aggressive play themes and the development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

36 LOGUE AND HARVEY

of aggressive behaviors (Holland, 2003). The historical struggle to align what is happening inthe classroom with personal philosophies of peace education may lead many teachers to validatethe zero tolerance approach as a proactive intervention to early expression of male violence.Holland suggested that zero tolerance inhibits children from developing and practicing imagina-tive and negotiating skills and may mediate the real risk factors present in those children’s livesin relation to aggressive behaviors. To consider rough-and-tumble play as a potentially valuableactivity, teachers must be willing to suspend their personal views.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The nature of pre-K programs is becoming increasingly academic, despite a strong research basesupporting dramatic play as a valuable tool for promoting academic achievement (Roskos &Christie, 2001). The study reported in this article was designed to survey teachers’ perceptionsof dramatic play, including rough-and-tumble play, commonly observed among young boys.Few studies examine how teachers’ perceptions of rough-and-tumble play affect their instruc-tional and guidance choices (Logue, Robie, Brown, & Wait, 2009). Discussions of the roles thatadults play in supporting dramatic play (including rough-and-tumble play), with its potential forstrengthening oral language, storytelling, role taking, and metacognition, is missing from theschool readiness literature. From the child development literature, it is clear that active, rough-and-tumble play, including superhero play, will likely be prevalent in any program serving 4-year-old boys (DiPietro, 1981; Parsons & Howe, 2006; Pellegrini & Smith, 1988). How that play isreceived is likely to affect boys’ success in preschool.

The purpose of the current exploratory study is to survey current practices and beliefs sur-rounding pretend play in classrooms of 4-year-olds. Understanding teachers’ views on pretendplay, including rough-and-tumble play, will help inform dialogue about realistic behavioralexpectations for 4-year-old children. The working definition of rough-and-tumble play used forthe current study includes superhero play, play fighting, chase games, and protect/rescue games.The questions guiding this research attempt to describe pre-K teachers’ perceptions of dramaticplay and, specifically, rough-and-tumble play. Four research questions derived from the literaturewere examined:

1. What dramatic play themes are evident in classrooms for 4-year-olds, and what genderdifferences exist among the play themes?

2. To what degree do teachers stop or discourage rough-and-tumble play?3. How prevalent are no-tolerance policies in schools and classrooms serving 4-year-olds?4. What do teachers report as major influences on their attitudes toward rough-and-tumble play?

METHOD

Participants

Participants were recruited through direct invitation. Letters of invitation, along with surveysand return envelopes, were mailed to all public pre-K teachers in one northeastern state in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 37

United States. Head Start and child care teachers were recruited through the regional trainingcenters that support Head Start and child care training in the state. Participation in the study wasvoluntary. Additionally, faculty from the state’s community colleges and 4-year programs offer-ing early childhood degrees distributed questionnaires to teachers in programs where their stu-dents were placed. The target population was preschool teachers of 4-year-old children.

The sample population included 98 teachers of 4-year-olds, with an age range from 18 to 60+years old. Fifteen percent of the teachers were between 18 and 25 years old, 17% were between26 and 30, 19% were between 31 and 40, 23% were between 41 and 50, 23% were between 51an d 60, and 1% were older than 60. This group of teachers averaged 9.2 years working with4-year-olds, ranging from teachers in their first year to one with 32 years of experience. Teachers’educational levels ranged from only a high school degree (12.2%), to child development associate(9.3%), associate’s degree (19.6), bachelor’s degree (44.3%), master’s degree (9.3%), andhigher than master’s degree (5.3%).

Teachers from a range of early education programs participated in the study; public schoolpre-Ks made up 39.2% of the sample. Head Start, including collaborations with public schools,made up 40.2%. Other settings sampled included private nonprofit (4.1%), private profit (5.2%),and child care and family child care (10.3%).

Children with disabilities were represented in most of the programs sampled. Only 3.1% of theteachers reported not serving children with disabilities and 81.3% included children through inclu-sive programs (61.5%) or pullout programs (19.8%). Another 13.5% stated that they did not cur-rently have children with disabilities in their programs but would serve them if they enrolled.

A total of 225 surveys were distributed, with a 43% return rate.

Procedure

After approval from the Human Subjects Research Committees at both authors’ institutions, sur-veys were mailed or distributed to potential participants. The completed surveys were mailed toone of the researchers. Upon receiving the surveys, the last page (including the names and/orphone numbers or e-mail addresses of those willing to participate in a follow-up interview) wasremoved from the surveys and placed in a separate file to protect the participants’ confidentiality.Surveys were numbered based on the order in which they were received.

The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, 2002). Qualitativedata from open-ended questions were analyzed by themes and used to support the quantitative data.

Instruments

Preschool Teacher Beliefs and Practices Questionnaire

Preschool teachers completed the Preschool Teacher Beliefs and Practices Questionnaire, aself-developed instrument designed by the researchers. The questionnaire was developed basedon key variables and themes presented in the dramatic play and rough-and-tumble play litera-ture. The initial questionnaire included a demographics section and contained an additional 46items, loaded onto three main factors as determined by factor analysis: (1) Prevalence of DramaticPlay Themes, (2) Play Interventions and Rules, (3) and Attitudes Toward Rough-and-TumblePlay. The questionnaire was tested for internal reliability using item analysis and tested for face

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

38 LOGUE AND HARVEY

validity and content validity through the use of a pilot study and factor analysis. Item analysiswas performed on the individual factors (excluding demographics), as was an item analysis forthe all factors combined. Item analysis revealed a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for Factor 1(Prevalence of Dramatic Play Themes) of .68 and a coefficient for Factor 2 (Play Interventionsand Rules) of .79. A review of the item-total statistics for Factor 1 revealed two negative items,increasing in reliability from .68 to .79 with item deletion. Item-total statistics for Factor 2revealed no negative items, and the deletion of two items increased Cronbach’s alpha coefficientfrom .79 to .81. Item analysis for Factor 3 (Attitudes Toward Rough-and-tumble Play) revealedthat by deleting one item, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient increased from .65 to .74. No addi-tional items were added, due to a high number of items needed to increase reliability to .80 forFactor 3. Item analysis also was calculated for all three factors combined and resulted in a stronginternal reliability (a = .70). A review of the item-total statistics revealed that no deletion ofitems was necessary to increase reliability for all factors combined. After eliminating poorlyworded and irrelevant items, the survey resulted in a pool of 43 items.

A pilot study was conducted to test the face validity and content validity of the questionnaire.Participants for the pilot study included 36 preschool teachers, with an age range from 18 to50 years old. The teachers were from three different early childhood programs, including a privatepreschool, a university child development center, and a Head Start preschool. First, participantswere instructed about the purpose of the questionnaire. In addition to completing the survey,participants were asked the following three questions to determine face validity: (1) Is the titleof the survey aligned with the purpose of the study? (2) Are the directions clear, and do theyaccurately relate the intent for which you should be answering the question? and (3) Does theoverall language and reading level of the survey reflect the ability of the group for which thesurvey will be given? To determine the content validity, participants were asked if additionalsections should be added to sufficiently address the topic, and if the items in each sectionbelonged in that section. From the pilot study, 85% of the participants suggested the removal ofone item that was unclear. Participants from the pilot study reported a clear understanding of thedirections and a clear understanding of the purpose of the study. Of this group, 85% recom-mended the removal of one item. Removal of the item in Factor 3 did not change the Cronbach’salpha, and it remained at .74. Item analysis was again run on the data from the pilot study. Theresults reported were as follows: Prevalence of Dramatic Play Themes, a = .77; Play Interven-tions and Rules, a = .80; Attitudes Toward Rough-and-Tumble Play, a = .74.

RESULTS

After the data were gathered, item analysis was conducted to determine the reliability of thesample responses. Similar to the previously reported reliability, item analysis revealed Factor 1(Prevalence of Dramatic Play Themes) had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .77; Factor 2 (PlayInterventions and Rules) had a coefficient of .80; and Factor 3 (Attitudes Toward Rough-and-Tumble Play) had a coefficient of .74. A combination of all three factors revealed a Cronbach’salpha coefficient of .68.

Question 1: What dramatic play themes do teachers report as evident for 4-year-olds, and whatgender differences exist among play themes?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 39

Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the prevalence of dramatic play themesfor girls and boys combined and separated by gender.

A series of t tests were performed to examine differences between boys and girls on the prev-alence of dramatic play themes. Results showed a significant difference between the amount ofsuperhero play for boys (M = 3.53, SD = 1.51) versus girls (M = 2.34, SD = 1.23), t(194) = 5.98,p < .05 (see Figure 1), a significant difference between house/family play for boys (M = 4.0,SD = 1.01) versus for girls (M = 4.46, SD = .75), t(194) = –3.51, p < .05 (see Figure 2), a statis-tically significant difference between pretend fighting for boys (M = 3.52, SD = 1.59) versusgirls (M = 2.06, SD = 1.16), t(194) = 6.88, p < .05 (see Figure 3), and a significant difference

TABLE 1Means and Standard Deviations for Prevalence of Dramatic Play Themes

Overall Girls Boys

Type of Dramatic Play M SD M SD M SD

Superhero play* 2.96 1.22 2.34 1.20 3.53 1.53House/family play* 4.24 .79 4.46 .75 4.00 1.01Pretend fighting* 2.83 1.19 2.06 1.15 3.52 1.59Chase games 4.09 1.24 4.03 1.22 4.20 1.22Protect/rescue play 3.28 1.03 3.58 1.01 3.40 1.03Nurture/care play* 3.58 .98 3.83 1.05 3.35 1.09

Note. 1 = less than monthly, 2 = monthly, 3 = weekly, 4 = 2–4 times per week, 5 = daily.*significant difference between gender at the .05 level.

FIGURE 1 Prevalence of superhero play.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Daily 2-4 times aweek

Weekly Monthly Less thanmonthly

BoysGirls

% o

f S

amp

leDow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

40 LOGUE AND HARVEY

between nurture/care games for boys (M = 3.35, SD = 1.09) versus girls (M = 3.83, SD = 1.05),t(194) = –3.04, p < .05 (see Figure 4). No significant differences were found between boys andgirls on the prevalence of protect/rescue games and chase games. Figures 1 through 4 present thereported percentages of how often girls and boys engaged in each dramatic play theme daily and2–4 times per week.

FIGURE 2 Prevalence of house/family play.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Daily 2–4 times aweek

Weekly Monthly Less thanmonthly

BoysGirls

% o

f S

amp

le

FIGURE 3 Prevalence of pretend fighting.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Daily 2–4 times aweek

Weekly Monthly Less thanmonthly

BoysGirls

% o

f S

amp

le

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 41

Qualitative evidence provided by participants suggests two themes illuminating these find-ings. First, some teachers view rough-and-tumble play themes as legitimate play choices,whereas others do not:

Both dramatic and rough-and-tumble play are vital to early childhood development. Too manysocial skills to count are practiced while pretending and engaging in the give and take of “puppyplay.”

I think there is real value in the normal choices the children make for dramatic play: superheroes,animal play, run and chase, rescue, families, doctor, etc., because so many real-life feelings come upwithin the context of those play themes.

My idea of dramatic play is experience created by an adult with a specific purpose in mind.In our learning environment, we perceive dramatic play as homemaker in the kitchen, postalworker (sorting mail, etc.). Rough-and-tumble play is not an acceptable social interaction at ourschool.

Rough play is too dangerous . . . playing house, going fishing, doctors, office work, and grocerystore keeps dramatic play positive.

I have a concern that some schools are not giving room for some rough and tumble play. I feelthat some physical contact (friendly) is helpful to children and sometimes creates close bonds.

A second theme suggests that factors beyond the teachers’ views influence the incidence ofany dramatic play in classrooms. The following comments illustrate the conflict new teachersface when their own beliefs conflict with those of their supervisors:

I would love to incorporate more dramatic play in our curriculum, but because of the academicdemands of the school system, I find it extremely difficult to incorporate it.

As a first-year teacher, I find myself greatly influenced by the demands of the administration.

Question 2: To what degree do teachers stop or discourage rough-and-tumble play?

FIGURE 4 Prevalence of nurture/care play.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Daily 2–4 times aweek

Weekly Monthly Less thanmonthly

BoysGirls

% o

f S

amp

le

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

42 LOGUE AND HARVEY

To examine the degree to which teachers report stopping or discouraging rough-and-tumbleplay, descriptive data were first examined. Percentages of how often teachers reported stoppingor redirecting any type of dramatic play revealed that 25% of the teachers stop or redirect dra-matic play 2–4 times a week for boys and 23% reported they stop or redirect dramatic play daily.For girls, the results revealed that 23% of the teachers stop or redirect play less than monthly and29% stop or redirect play weekly. A series of t tests were performed to examine the differencebetween boys versus girls. Results demonstrated no overall significant difference between howoften teachers stopped or redirected dramatic play for boys versus girls. A t test revealed a sig-nificant difference between how often boys (M = 4.43, SD = .92) versus girls (M = 4.06, SD = 1.1),t(157) = 2.1, p < .05 have social conflicts that require a teacher’s intervention.

To look more specifically at the types of interventions that teachers were likely to use whenchildren engage in rough-and-tumble play, a one-way ANOVA was calculated. Results indi-cated a significant difference, F(8, 821) = 9.607, p < .05. Table 2 presents the percentages ofhow often teachers use particular interventions when children engage in rough-and-tumble play.

It appears from the teachers’ comments that some teachers anticipate children’s desire forrough-and-tumble play and prepare for it, whereas others anticipate danger and prohibit or stopit immediately.

Rough-and-tumble play typically leads to someone getting hurt, so I redirect. When a child talksabout jail, using karate, etc., I’ll ask questions and redirect.

Rough play is too dangerous—if allowed, someone is almost always hurt, so we just try to elimi-nate it as much as possible.

Rough-and-tumble play is not allowed in my classroom. At recess, the children may play chase.If it gets rough, the play is stopped.

I don’t see any harm in chase games, as long as guidelines are in place for safety. I don’t allowthe kids to grab each other because it too easily ends up in injury.

I think children need some rough-and-tumble play within reason. I will play on the floorwith children and say, “I am getting some energy out,” but I emphasize that we do not hit eachother.

Several teachers acknowledged the value that rough-and-tumble play holds for boys and reflectedon the teacher’s role in supervising the play.

TABLE 2Reported Percentages of Interventions Used for Rough-and-Tumble Play

Type of Intervention AlmostUsually Always Possibly Unlikely

Almost Never

Immediately stop it 34 25 32 6 3Redirect play to safe area 40 23 24 8 5Hug, cuddle, rock, comfort 17 13 39 18 12Talk to parents 8 12 51 19 10Have conversations w/children about safety 34 25 24 14 3Modify environment 20 22 42 10 6Redirect play to quiet activity 14 27 38 18 2Observe play uninterrupted until someone is hurt 3 19 32 24 22Give a warning, then consequence 16 10 37 20 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 43

It is possible to redirect superhero play, but inevitably, the children are back at it again a short timelater. We ban superhero toys at schools. There is no “shooting”; however, Batman, Spiderman,Transformers, and Ninja Turtles are the preferred means to pretend play among the boys.

Rough-and-tumble play is inevitable, particularly with boys. It seems to satisfy innate physicaland cultural drives. As long as all participants are enjoying the play and are safe, I don’t intervene.Play is the basis of all learning in all domains.

My concern with rough play is, of course, somebody getting hurt, but also it disrupts the whole class.I find the pots and pans, broom and sink are the most difficult parts of dramatic play to control. I findmyself removing items from the area after a verbal warning. But I don’t feel this solves the problem.

I think it’s great! I think children need boundaries and once they are known, the children can playwell together. I think that by not allowing the play, we would be restricting their creative ability.I think by telling children “being a superhero is bad” that they will wonder if being a hero is bad.The majority of children are playing the “good guy.”

Question 3: How prevalent are no-tolerance policies in schools and classrooms serving4-year-olds?

Results from the survey indicated that 46% of the respondents have a “no-tolerance” policytoward rough-and-tumble play and 54% do not. This would suggest that some decisions aboutrough-and-tumble play are made by teachers alone and others are institutionalized. To furtherexamine the prevalence of no-tolerance policies in relation to specific types of programs (publicpre-K, Head Start, or neither public pre-K or Head Start), a chi square test was performed.Results showed no significant differences between the type of early childhood program and theirpolicies on no tolerance.

Our working definition of rough-and-tumble play encompasses several different play styles.To better understand which parts of rough-and-tumble play presented the greatest challenges toteachers, a one-way ANOVA was calculated on the degree to which teachers allow each of fiverough-and-tumble dramatic play themes in their classrooms. On a 1 to 5 (1 = always allow, 5 =always prohibit) scale, teachers were asked to report the degree to which they allow variationsof rough-and-tumble play. Results indicated a significant difference among the variations ofrough-and-tumble play, F(4, 474) = 72.09, p < .05. A Tukey’s HSD post hoc test revealed thatteachers’ attitudes about allowing pretend fighting (M = 4.17, SD = 1.01) was significantly dif-ferent than for all other types of rough-and-tumble dramatic play: superhero play (M = 2.75,SD = 1.29), t(96) = 1.33, p < .05; protect/rescue (M = 1.75, SD = .83 ), t(96) = 2.41, p > .05; andchase games (M = 2.43, SD = 1.11), t(96) = 1.74, p > .05. Table 3 presents the reported percent-ages for how strongly teachers agree or disagree with allowing the four different types of rough-and-tumble dramatic play themes. In addition, the dramatic play theme of protect/rescue was

TABLE 3Teachers’ Reported Levels of Tolerance for Rough-and-Tumble Dramatic Play Themes (data in percentages)

Type of Dramatic PlayAlways Allow Allow Neutral Stop

Always Prohibit

Superhero play 17 35 20 15 13Pretend fighting 1 9 9 32 50Protect/rescue 45 40 12 2 1Chase games 19 41 25 7 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

44 LOGUE AND HARVEY

also significantly different than all three other types of rough-and-tumble play: superhero play,t(96) = −1.07; pretend fighting, t(96) = −2.42; and chase games, t(96) = −.68.

Play fighting is viewed differently than other parts of rough-and-tumble play. This findingwas corroborated by teacher comments. The frequent co-occurrence of superhero play and playfighting is confusing to many teachers:

At recess, the children may play chase. If it gets rough, the play is stopped. Superhero play isallowed as long as it doesn’t get rough. Power Rangers are not allowed.

My center does not allow any rough play; however, my belief is that children love to act out whatthey are familiar with and most are put in front of the TV when not at school. I wouldn’t mind lettingit happen safely.

Teachers’ comments suggest that the incidence of rough-and-tumble play in pre-K programs ismore than a teacher’s preference. Several teachers point to the ways that school policy and parents’preferences affect the play they allow and discourage:

I personally don’t like play fighting and never permitted it at home with my own children. My super-intendent does not allow any outside play.

It’s necessary, but public pre-K programs are so short there isn’t a lot of time to allow for dra-matic play/r&t. Also, parents seem to dislike THEIR children participating in this type of play “atschool.”

Most of the families I have worked with strongly discourage or prohibit rough-and-tumble playin a school environment. This is a public pre-K: academic and socially focused. There is no need forrough-and-tumble play here . . . home is the place for it, but not here.

Rough-and-tumble play is not allowed in public school here, so we try to follow the same rules.Because we are located in a public school where most rough-and-tumble play is not allowed, we

try to follow suit. I allow r&t play as long as it is safe, but the school has a “hands-off” policy thatthey try to adhere to, so we do as well.

Rough-and-tumble play was encouraged in one program I was at with a written policy. WhereI am now, it is all but forbidden. I think the program I am at now is too safe.

Question 4: What are the major influences on teachers’ attitudes toward rough-and-tumbleplay?

Figure 5 presents the three most influential factors on teachers’ attitudes toward rough-and-tumble play. Results indicated that 78% of the teachers reported that their courseworkand training in early childhood education was the most influential factor on their attitudestoward dramatic play. Forty-one percent of teachers reported that the second most influentialfactor was their own childhood experiences. Last, 32% of teachers reported that “beliefs andattitudes of their co-workers” was the third most influential factor on their attitudes towarddramatic play.

Teachers did not directly address the influences on their thinking about rough-and-tumbleplay in this survey. However, 54% of the teachers wrote about their beliefs and feelings, and65% indicated an interest in more training. One teacher’s comments reflect the dilemma thatmany teachers face in trying to balance the results of child development research, the behaviorof children in their classes, and traditional teaching approaches:

I understand there is an importance to rough-and-tumble play. I would be very interested in trainingon how to better facilitate it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 45

DISCUSSION

As expected, the data from the current study suggest that children in pre-K engage in a range ofdramatic play options, some sanctioned by teachers and some not. Overall, pre-K teachers reportchildren playing house/family themes with the greatest frequency, although chase and protect/rescue themes were also high for boys and girls. The working definition of rough-and-tumbleplay used for the current study, adopted from play literature, included play fighting, chasinggames, protect/rescue games, and superhero play (added for purposes of the current study basedon recent research suggesting that superhero play is a subset of rough-and-tumble play).

The data from the current study suggest that though rough-and-tumble play occurs regularlyin classrooms, teachers treat the specific behaviors making up the standard definition differently.Play fighting was significantly less often allowed in comparison to other forms of rough-and-tumble play, including chase games, protect/rescue games, and superhero play. The qualitativedata from teachers’ comments revealed that for those who allowed rough-and-tumble play, par-ticular behaviors of play involving use of weapons or certain characters (e.g., Power Rangers)were not allowed. The qualitative data suggest a strong ambivalence among pre-K teachersabout what types of play are acceptable and not acceptable. Finally, consideration of the home–school connection is important in understanding acceptable play themes in pre-K classrooms.Some teachers revealed the differences between their own beliefs and what they thought parentswould view as acceptable classroom behaviors.

Clear gender differences emerged in teachers’ reports of child behavior and in the behaviorthey stopped or prohibited. Almost half (48%) of teachers stopped or redirected boys’ dramaticplay daily or several times/week, whereas only 29% of teachers reported stopping or redirectinggirls’ dramatic play weekly. Teachers intervene in boys’ social conflicts significantly more often

FIGURE 5 Three most influential factors on attitudes toward play.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Own ChildhoodExperiences

Coursework & Trainingin EC

Beliefs and Attitudes of co-workers

Factors

Per

cen

tag

e

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

46 LOGUE AND HARVEY

than they do for girls. We already know that more rough-and-tumble play exists among boys andthat superhero play is considered a subcategory of rough-and-tumble play (Holland, 2003;Pellegrini & Perlmutter, 1987). The current study revealed significant differences in the preva-lence of dramatic play themes for boys versus girls. Boys engaged in superhero play and playfighting significantly more often than girls, whereas girls more often engaged in house/familyplay and nurture/care play themes. No differences emerged between how often boys and girlsengaged in chase games, suggesting that this type of play may be integrated into various playthemes.

The current study suggests that teachers more frequently stop rough-and-tumble play thanother forms of dramatic play. Within dramatic play, play fighting, while occurring daily for 40%of boys’ play, was the least tolerated play category among teachers. Protect/rescue play was themost tolerated form of rough-and-tumble play. Most teachers perceived chase games and pro-tect/rescue play as acceptable forms of rough-and-tumble play. However, for many teachers,these two specific types of play were not even categorized, from their perspective, as compo-nents of rough-and-tumble play. This view contradicts the literature, suggesting that chasegames and protect/rescue can be categorized within rough-and-tumble play. The current studyhelps to further clarify the components of rough-and-tumble play as defined by classroom teachers.

Limitations of the Study

The current study solicited teacher perceptions of children’s play. There are no direct observa-tions of either the play itself or the teachers’ interventions in the play. The study used the defini-tion of rough-and-tumble play reported in the play literature, adding superhero play as adimension, because it is supported in recent literature. Examination of the various componentsof this definition show that, for this sample, play-fighting games are viewed very differently byteachers than other aspects of rough-and-tumble play. Our definition may have led teachers tounder- or overreport rough-and-tumble play because the definition had several components.Also, because girls and boys engage in chase games (a component of the definition) at relativelythe same frequency, but boys engage in play fighting and superhero play more frequently, thedata may have underestimated gender differences in play. The survey also did not make a dis-tinction between play allowed inside and outside of the classroom. Future studies should makethis distinction.

Additionally, all participants in this study were female. Male teachers might view rough-and-tumble play differently.

Implications and Future Research

Pretend fighting occurs cross-culturally and, for most children, does not escalate into trueaggression. It appears from these data that teachers may not be making the distinction betweenplay fighting and real fighting in their interventions. If, as the literature suggests, there is socialand cognitive value to rough-and-tumble play, and if boys are prohibited from engaging in it athigh rates, future research on the relationship between rough-and-tumble play to school achieve-ment and social adjustment is warranted. If boys, due to their choices of dramatic play themes,are discouraged from dramatic play, how will this affect their early language and literacy devel-opment and their engagement in school?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 47

Many teachers expressed ambivalence about the function that rough-and-tumble play servesfor children, as well as about their role in allowing or disallowing it. It is evident from theteacher comments that some teachers describe play themes they plan and supply with props(e.g., housekeeping or firefighter) as valuable play, whereas child-initiated rough-and-tumbleplay themes (e.g., superheroes or play fighting) are viewed as problematic. For one teacher, theidea that child-initiated rough-and-tumble play is viewed by others as dramatic play was a new(and unwelcome) idea. Several teachers indicated a desire for training and discussion aboutrough-and-tumble play. Further research on these topics may help us better understand thegrowing achievement gap for boys. Recent curriculum projects integrating boys’ active play andthe teaching of literacy skills suggest the need for reevaluating how teachers plan curriculum(Logue & Shelton, 2008; Logue et al., 2009). As 4-year-olds enter the public school system ingreater numbers, a more in-depth understanding of the gender difference in play can inform cur-riculum and program policies.

A high percentage of teachers in the current study reported that their attitudes toward rough-and-tumble play were developed though their coursework in early childhood education. Pelle-grini and Smith (1993) suggested that adults’ ambivalence about active play underlies the under-representation of studies about it in the dramatic play literature. To promote research-basedpractice, it is important to examine the content of early childhood coursework related to rough-and-tumble play and to examine the attitudes of faculty members teaching these courses.

The role of play in learning continues to be an important issue as the numbers of preschool-age children entering public school programs increase, many of which are highly focused onacademics. The current study highlights the different attitudes and beliefs held by preschoolteachers, all of whom support dramatic play. Academic success for all children requires thatearly educators continue to examine their own beliefs and build curriculum on sound, research-based practices.

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B., & Schulman, K. L. (2005). The state of preschool: 2005 state preschoolyearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved December 1, 2006, fromwww.nieer.org/yearbook2005.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to ecology of mind. New York: Ballentine.Bennett-Armistead, V. S., Duke, N. K., & Moses, A. M. (2005). Literacy and the youngest learner: Best practices for

educators of children from birth to 5. New York: Scholastic.Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2008). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions

on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 2010. Retrieved March 3, 2009, fromwww.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=1554

Campbell, D. W., & Eaton, W. O. (1999). Sex differences in the activity level of infants. Infant and Child Development,8, 1–17.

Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education:Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42–57.

Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys’ groups. Child Develop-ment, 54, 1400–1416.

Costabile, A., Smith, P. K., Matheson, L., Aston, J., Hunter, T., & Boulton, M. J. (1991). A cross-national comparison ofhow children distinguish serious and playful fighting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 881–887.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.DiPietro, J. A. (1981). Rough & tumble play: A function of gender. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 50–58.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

48 LOGUE AND HARVEY

Fagot, B. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step toward understanding sex role development. Devel-opmental Psychology, 21, 1097–1104.

French, J., & Pena, S. (1991). Children’s hero play of the 20th century: Changes resulting from television influence.Child Study Journal, 21(2), 79–95.

Fromel, K., Stelzer, J., Groffik, D., & Ernest, J. (2008). Physical activity of children ages 6–8: The beginning of schoolattendance. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23, 29–40.

Fry, D. P. (1987). Differences between playfighting and serous fighting among Zapotec children. Ethology and Sociobiology,8(4), 285–306.

Fry, D. P. (2005). Rough-and-tumble social play in humans. In A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The nature ofplay: Great apes and humans (pp. 54–88). New York: Guilford.

Garbarino, J. (2000). Lost boys. New York: Anchor.Gilliam, W. (2005). Pre-kindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state pre-kindergarten systems. New Haven,

CT: Yale Child Study Center.Gormley, W., Grayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development.

Developmental Psychology, 41, 872–884.Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1965). The affectional system. Behavior of Non-Human Primates, 2, 287–334.Holland, P. (2003). We don’t play with guns here: War, weapon and superhero play in the early years. Philadelphia:

Open University Press.Humphreys, A. P., & Smith, P. K. (1984). Rough-and-tumble in preschool and playground. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Play in

animals and humans (pp. 129–151). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Katch, J. (2001). Under deadman’s skin: Discovering the meaning of children’s violent play. Boston: Beacon.Kindlon, D. J., & Thompson, M. (2000). Raising Cain. New York: Random House.Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., & Honig, A. S. (1988). The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program:

Long-range impact of an early intervention with low-income children and their families. In D. R. Powell (Ed.), Parenteducation as early childhood intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research, and practice (pp. 79–104).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Logue, M. E., Robie, M., Brown, M., & Waite, K. (2009). Read my dance: Promoting early writing through dance.Childhood Education, 85, 216–222.

Logue, M. E., & Shelton, H. (2008). The stories bad guys tell: Promoting literacy and social awareness in preschool. TheConstructivist, 19(1). Available at http://www.odu.edu/educ/act/journal/index.html

Maccoby, E. E. (1974). The development of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age of children. Sex Roles, 15(5/6),

367–378.Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and perfor-

mance? Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 33–51.Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions.

Developmental Psychology, 37, 431–446.McGrew, W. C. (1972). An ecological study of children’s behaviour. London: Academic.Neuman, S. (2006). How we neglect knowledge—and why. American Educator, 30(2), 24–27.Parsons, A., & Howe, N. (2006). Superhero toys and boys’ physically active and imaginative play. Journal of Research

in Childhood Education, 20, 287–300.Pellegrini, A. D. (1988). Elementary-school children’s rough and tumble play and social competence. Developmental

Psychology, 24, 802–806.Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Rough-and-tumble play from childhood through adolescence: Development and possible func-

tions. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Handbook of childhood social development (pp. 438–453). Oxford, UK:Blackwell.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Perlmutter, J. C. (1987). A re-examination of the Smilansky-Paten matrix of play behavior. Journalof Research in Childhood Education, 2, 89–96.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1988). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play.Child Development, 69, 577–598.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School recess: Implications for education and development. Review of Educa-tional Research, 63(1), 51–67.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3

PRESCHOOL TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF ACTIVE PLAY 49

Rathbun, A., & West, J. (2004). From kindergarten through third grade: Children’s beginning school experiences(NCES 2004-007). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Roskos, K., & Christie, J. (2001). Examining the play-literacy interface: A critical review and future directions. Journalof Early Childhood Literacy, 1(1), 59–89.

Riley, J. G., & Jones, R. B. (2007). When girls and boys play: What research tells us. Childhood Education, 84, 38–43.Schafer, M., & Smith, P. K. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of play fighting and real fighting in primary school. Educa-

tional Research, 38, 173–181.Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). Lasting differences: The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison

study through age 23 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 12). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2006). Conceptulation of readiness and the context of early learning stan-dards: The intersection of policy and research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 153–173.

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development.Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Smith, P. K., & Connolly, K. (1980). The ecology of preschool behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.Smith, P. K., & Lewis, K. (1985). Rough-and-tumble play, fighting, and chasing in nursery school children. Ethology

and Sociobiology, 6(3), 175–181.Smith, P. K., Smees, R., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2004). Play fighting and real fighting: Using video playback methodology

with young children. Aggressive Behavior, 30(2), 164–173.Smith, P. K., Smees, R., Pellegrini, A. D., & Menesini, E. (2002). Comparing pupil and teacher perceptions for playful

fighting, serious fighting and positive peer interaction. In J. L. Roopnarine (Ed.), Conceptual, social-cognitive, andcontextual issues in the fields of play: Play and culture studies (Vol. 4, pp. 235–245). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (2006). Handbook of research on the education of young children (2nd ed.). New York:Erlbaum.

SPSS for Windows, Rel. 15.0.1. (2002). Chicago: SPSS Inc.Tyre, P. (2008). The trouble with boys. New York: Crown Publishers.Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Zill, N., Sorongon, A., & Kim, K. (2003). FACES 2003. Research Brief: Children’s outcomes and program quality in

Head Start. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

aine

- O

rono

] at 0

5:54

21

Oct

ober

201

3