This article was downloaded by: [University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee]On: 06 October 2014, At: 00:21Publisher: 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 ChildhoodEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Constraints of Pretend Play: Explicit andImplicit RulesJoanne M. Curran aa State University of New York College at OneontaPublished online: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Joanne M. Curran (1999) Constraints of Pretend Play: Explicit and Implicit Rules,Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14:1, 47-55

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568549909594751

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 Chi ldhood Educa tion

1999. Vol. 14. No. I

Co pyright 1999 by the Assoc iation forChildh ood Educatio n International

0256-854 3/99

Constraints of Pretend Play: Explicit and Implicit Rules

Joanne M. CurranState University of New YorkCollege at Oneont a

Abstract. This observational study of child ren's pretend play in child caredescribes the rule structure within which children operate as they develop socialpretend skills. Children at three different age levels (3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) wereobserved, and th eir recognition and adaptation of accepted rules ofpretend playbecame increas ingly evident over time. Implicit and explicit rules of pretendbehavior are identified and supported with excerpts from observation narratives.Explicit rules of pretend play are identified as 1) a director arrives first in thedesignated pretend play area or is fir st to suggest engaging plot ideas, 2) allchildren must ask to play, 3) all children must take a role in the pretend sequence,and 4) all ch ildren must play fairly . Implicit rules ofpretend play are identifiedas 1) the fantasy / real ity di st inction must be maintained, 2) players must engageeach other in th e game, and 3) the sequence of the game must be maintained byadding to and accepting others' proposal s.

The study of children's play has been ofinterest to psychologists since the late 19thcentury. Various theories have been pro­posed as to why play occurs in both animaland human groups. These theories include awide range of reasons for play: play resultsfrom the need to expend excess energy; playis instinctual; play is preparation for adultbehavior; and, most recently, play is arousal­seeking behavior and the result of a need toproduce effects in the environment.

A developmental theory ofplay proposedby Piaget (1962), and elaborated upon bySmilansky (1968), indicates that there is aprogression in play behaviors from imita­tive to symbolic to rule-governed. Thisclassification or categorization of play intoa series of behaviors implies discrete formsofplay for particular ages and draws atten­tion away from considering the actual over­lap among these categories . Theidentification of rule-governed play follow­ing symbolic play implies that rules have noplace in symbolic play. Garvey (1990 )notedthat rules do have a part in symbolic play,but she did not elaborate on what rules areactually operating. Play has been identi­fied as a leading behavior; that is , through

play, the child proceeds to greater develop­ment ofboth physical and intellectual skills(Vygotsky, 1976). Considering Piaget's(1962) theory of the progression ofcognitivedevelopment through the various periods­that each successive stage profits from de­velopmentduring a previous stage-pretendplay appears to contribute in some fashionto the ability to play games with rules.Specific relations between pretend play andgames with rules have not been identified.

Pretend play is observed primarily inthe symbolic period, between the ages of 2and 6, and has its own developmental pro­gression, beginning with simple object sub­stitution (i.e., using a ball for an apple andpretending to eat it), and moving to a com­plex social system of group imaginativeplay. Once games with rules are incorpo­rated into group play, the social interac­tions of pretend play begin to disappear.

Recent studies on the effects of pretend­ing on reasoning have indicated that a tasksetting that includes pretending enhancesyoung children's ability to reason syllogisti­cally (Dias & Harris, 1988). However, thenature of the relationship between reason­ing and pretending remains unclear. We

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CURRAN

know that reasoning requires the ability toconsider multiple possibilities and the abil­ity to follow rules of logic. Since people'sreasoning is usually based on their experi­ences, rather than on formal logic, usingpretending to reason syllogistically allowsa control for empirical bias. Current re­search on pretend play does not indicatewhether pretending influences the consid­eration of multiple possibilities, or whetherit creates a sensitivity to rules. Therefore,I attempted to discover the extent to whichchildren are aware of, and employ, ruleswhen they are playing pretend. Ifpretendplay is found to be rule-bound, then thismight partially explain the tendency ofyoung children to attend more closely torules when a task is presented in a mannerthat includes pretending.

MethodSetting and SubjectsObservations were made in two preschoolclasses and a prekindergarten class at aprivate school that operates as both a schooland a child care center. This school/childcare is an innovative cooperative of parentsand professionals set in a middle class sub­urb of a large metropolitan area. Play andpretend play are accepted and valued ac­tivities within the classroom curriculum.All the classrooms that I observed includeda "dress ups" comer, complete with cos­tumes and props. Small animal toys wereevident in all classrooms and often wereused in fantasy play separate from the "dressups." Classes ranged in size from eightchildren in the youngest group to 12 in themiddle group to 23 in the pre-kindergartenclass. A teacher and teacher aide wereassigned to each class.

Observations were completed over a 12­week period. A portion of this time wasspent observing the children in non-free­time activities such as a "settling" circle(occurring first thing in the morning), in­struction time, snack time, lunch time, thegeneral all-school Monday meetings, andmusic class . Being a part of the classesduring these times helped the children tobecome more familiar with me. I explained

that I was in their class to learn about howchildren play. During free time I told themI was "working" and for the most part theydid not involve me in their play. Theexception to this exclusion occurred if! sattoo close to the "dress ups" area, in whichcase I was included in the plot in progress.After an initial period of general observa­tions, I was able to determine that pretendplay occurred during free-play sessions.Furthermore, I was able to identify thechildren who most frequently played pre­tend themes.

Data CollectionObservations were made during regularlyscheduled classroom hours during free-playsessions, when pretend play is most fre­quent. Three classes of children were ob­served during free time, with specialattention given to children involved in someform of pretend play. Pretend sequencestended to be either individual or group playin the dress ups areas or outside on theplayground, or group play with small fig­ures, mostly toy animals. The threeclasses were made up of 1) 3- to 4-year­olds, 2) 4- to 5-year-olds, and 3) 5- to 6­year-olds , Because 4- to 5-year-olds mostfrequently are pretend players, most ofthe observations were made in that group(observed for 25 morning sessions of 2-3hours'duration). Observations were madein the mornings, when most children werepresent and free time was scheduled. Inan effort to mark development change,the 3- to 4-year-olds were observed as well,but since they exhibited fewer instances ofpretend play, observations were limited tofour 30-minute periods. The pre-kinder­garten class was observed for 11 periods,30-45 minutes each, which also took placein the mornings when periods offree timewere scheduled. Each classroom had a"dress ups" area that included costumes,mirrors, kitchen appliances, table andchairs, dolls and stuffed toys, plastic fooditems (such as fruit, vegetables, a fancycake), and (empty) packages of groceryitems. The two younger classes' dress upareas also included telephones.

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Data Analys isThe development and imposition of ruleswithin the imaginative play context consti­tute the focus for the present study. Thetechniques of participant observation wereused to study the imaginative play of chil­dren, with the unit of analysis being aninstance of pretend play. Pretend play wasdefined as actions or words that signaledmake-believe (e.g., directions to "pretend";a shift in tone of voice , as in speaking "for"inanimate toys;using an object to representsomething else that was indicated throughlabeling or gesture; or the assignment ofpretend roles).

Analysis of the data was conducted us­ing a constant comparative method (Bogdan& Biklen, 1982). As I analyzed and recodedmy observation notes, categories of rulesbecame evident. When opportunities aro seto question the children, I did so. Forexample, many observations of the dressups activities were similar. As the childrenarrived, the first person there told the oth­ers what the game was going to be for thatday. After seeing children going to thedress ups area and assigning roles , andwatching the first person there directingthe action, I asked the children how theydecided what to do. The older children toldme that the first person in the dress upsarea was the one who decided on the gameto be played. I also asked for explanationsand verifications from the classroom teach­ers and from teacher aides on those occasionswhen the play rules seemed to be related toclassroom management procedures.

In this study, all constructions of thechildren's explicit and implicit rules weregenerated from an analysis of the data andare illustrated by excerpts from notes takenduring observations and conversations com­pleted at the site. Following the generationof rules, pretend sequences were reviewed,and tallies kept, for the frequency withwhich rules were followed by the children.

ResultsAs a result of the data analysis , two sets ofrules were established that seemed to applyto pretend play. The first set of rules was

CONSTRAINTS OF PRETEND PLAY

stated explicitly by the children to me (whenI informally checked with them) or to oneanother when rules were violated. Thesecond set of rules was unspoken, but wereapparently salient to the children, as exhib­ited by their actions.

Explicit rules of pretend play were simi­lar to those guiding most other forms ofsocial behavior. All children taking part inpretend play sequences were aware oftheserules and halted play when these rules wereviolated. These explicit rules are as follows :

1. A child who is first to arrive in thedress ups area, or who first proposes anidea for a game, becomes the director.

2. All children must ask to play.3. All children must take on some role

within the story.4. All children mustplayfairly (although

what is fair is not clearly defined, it isusually used in the context of taking turns,sharing, and not being too bossy).

Implicit rules for pretend play contrib­uted directly to continuation of a pretendplay sequence. These implicit rules are asfollows:

1. Children maintain the distinctionbetween fan tasy and reality while operat­ing within the fantasy context .

2. Unless playing alone, children en­gage others in the pretend game in progress.

3 . Children maintain the pretend se­quence by creating and continuing anadequate story line, and by acceptingthe fantasy proposals of others.

Some children attended to these im­plicit rules more readily than others. Thosewho were more attentive (i.e., master play­ers) seemed able to find the balance be­tween being overly directive (bossy) and notproviding adequate information or refusingto compromise in order to keep the storygoing . They recognized when another childwas becoming confused between reality andfantasy, and assisted the child in makingthe distinction. They also accepted fanta­sies proposed by others, and worked at

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CURRAN

compromising if others' ideas did not coor­dinate with their own .

Explicit Social RulesRule 1. Be first to get directorship. The

position of director comes from being thefirst child to enter the dress ups area, or tobe the person who thought of an idea for agame on the playground. Th e pattern oftransition from group work to free time inthe classroom was determined by theteacher, who allowed children to leave thelarge group and enter into small groups. Inthis manner, the teacher inadvertently in­fluenced the selection of "play director."For example, children in the class wereassigned to color groups. When makingtransitions, teachers would say somethinglike "the green group may choose some­thing to do," followed by "the red group maychoose something to do," etc. The teachersvaried the order of releasing children fromthe large group in a regular fashion. Forthe 5- to 6-year-old group, the same groupwas always first (my observations were onthe same day each week). This led to thesame child being first in the dress ups areaon most of the observations for this class.The following three sequences illustratehow the children recognized the personwho took the leadership position and howthat child got the position (R denotes re­searcher; other letters denote the names ofindividual children):1. (R): What game do you play in dressups?

(S): House.(R): How do you play that?(S): Whoever is first in the dress ups

gets to be mom if they want to.2. (R) : Who gets to decide what game isgoing to be played that day?

(P): Whoever's the mom .3. A 4-year-old (M) and a group of childrenare playing a chasing game. As she passesby me, she shouts happily:

(M): I'm the boss of the game!(R ): How did you get to be boss?(M): I started it! (and she runs oft)Rule 2. Ask to play. To enter the dress

ups area once anyone else is there, a child

must ask to play. Asking to play occursmore often as children mature. I observedone interesting exception to this rule, how­ever, when a child in the 5- to 6-year-oldclass entered a game in progress withoutasking. This seemed to be allowed, becausethe director of the game was her friend .Toward the end of the school year, theteacher reported that some cliques wereforming among the girls in the class. It maybe that the rule for asking to play wasbypassed for members within a clique. Thisviolation ofthe rule only occurred one time,however, for children in the 5- to 6-year-oldclass. Children in the youngest group wereinstructed by the teacher's aide to requestpermission to play when they approachedchildren already involved in pretend play.Sometimes the children did not heed thisrequest, and so multiple story plots wouldbe in operation, causing confusion for thechildren involved. In the following example,a story plot shifted and left one child, whowas originally involved in the pretend game,feeling confused regarding both the dura­tion of free time and what had happened tothe story line in progress:

As free time began, two little girls wereplaying in the dress ups area.

(J ): Ring, ring.(K): Nobody's home.(J): Can you go to the dance with me?(K): I want to wear a dress.(J): There's a pink dress.

The girls then spent several minutes add­ing accessories to their outfits and strug­gling with the high heels. Another child (G)entered the dress ups area and began cook­ing at the stove and setting the table. (J)told her that they were going to the dance,but (G)'s response was: "Well, I have to gogrocery shopping." (J) and (K) pretended toeat from the plates on the table; then thefollowing occurred:

(G): I'll be the baby.(J): I don't want to.(G): You have to.(J): (near tears) I don't want to be the

baby.(G): I didn't ask you to.At this point the teacher told the class

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

that it was going to be clean-up time soon .(J) and (K) began to change clothes. But(G)thought they were cleaning up and twicesaid, "It's not time to clean up." When (K)responded 'We know that," (J ) took on therole ofthe baby, saying, "I want cereal." (G)responded, "No, I'm making a cake. Do youwant cake?" (J) answered, ''Yes .''

Note how the entering child (G) not onlydid not ask permission to play, but alsoorganized her own story line (cooking) anddirected others into it. In the 3- to 4-year­olds group, more parallel pretend play wasobserved, and their teacher directed chil­dren to ask permission. Parallel pretendplay refers to children playing in the dressups areas at the same time, but not sharinga pretend game. Asking permission to playwas noted in only 22% of the total of 50separate pretend sequences recorded forthe 4- to 5-year-olds and was noted in 70%of 14 separate pretend sequences recordedfor the 5- to 6-year-olds.

An interesting phenomenon that oc­curred only in the 5- to 6-year-old class wasthe overgeneralization ofthe rule for askingto play. Even in cases when the initial leaderleft the dress ups area and became involvedin other activities, a child seeking entry tothe dress ups area was sent by children stillplaying in the dress ups area to the originalleader, to ask permission to play.

Rule 3. Take a role. Each child joining apretend game being established must takeon a role in thatgame. This happens quickly,and generally without conflict. Childrenmay take their role of choice, unless some­one else has already taken it. In that case,negotiation is called for . Sometimes two ormore children can take the same role (e.g.,puppies), or the director will persuade onechild to take on another role. Consider thefollowing example in the dress ups area as(A) questions (M):

(A): Who are you?(M): I-you.(A): I don't understand, M. What's

your name going to be?(N) crawls in and (A) pats her and asks,

"Are you a baby, N?(N): I'm a baby puppy.

CONSTRAINTS OF PRETEND PLAY

(M): Pretend I'm a puppy.(A): Okay, but she's younger than you.(M): But I'm not a year older.The taking on of roles is facilitated when

a game known to most of the children isbeing played. The dress ups areas, whichrepresent traditional domestic scenes, fa­cilitate the game of ''house,'' whereby chil­dren take on the roles of family membersand pets. As one child told me, "Everyoneknows it's a house and how to play." Othertitled themes that children played were"dog pound," in which the roles were the dogand the dog catchers. This was a chasinggame in which the dog is chased and cap­tured by the dog catchers. Other titledthemes ranged from popular films such asPeter Pan and Home Alone, which providednot only characters but also plot sequencesupon which to elaborate, to singular titlessuch as "castle," "choo choo," "pilot," "pup­pies," and "baby," which provided eitherlimited environments or characters fromwhich to choose one's role. Consider thefollowing example of children playing "Pe­ter Pan" on the playground:

(T): I'm Tiger Lily.(N): I'm Tinkerbell.(S): I'm Wendy.(T): I'm the mermaid.(P): I'm Tinkerbell.(S): No, she is.Rule 4. Play fairly. A social skill that

seemed to be very important to the childrenwas the exhibition of just, or fair, behavior.When conflicts arose, the complaint ofrecordwas generally that a particular child wasnot being "fair."1. (P): I always have to be the dog; that'snot fair!2. (T): She doesn't let me play with any­thing I want to . She always gets here firstand doesn't let me do anything I want.3. (A conflict between 4-year-olds)

(S): You need to let me play.(E) : I have to tell you something. You

cannot do everything your way.

Implicit Social RulesRule 1. Distinguish fantasy from real­

ity. Children signal to each other that they

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pretend our mothers got them.Pretend we have to find them.I found some lava rock.Me,too. I found some gold. Pretend.

CURRAN

are involved in play (Bateson , 1956). Thismetacommunication is both explicit andimplicit within the pretend dialogues.Giffen (1984) suggests that children's firstchoice is to signal each other without usingout-of-frame statements (references to thefact that this is not real), but if necessary,they resort to direct reminders. The fol­lowing interview with a 5-year-old illus­trates how children distinguish fantasyfrom reality:

(S): Sometimes we tell someone andsay 'pret end,' like pretend I ran away orpretend I got sick.

(R): Why ?(S): If it was, if we just tell them and

don't say "pretend," they'll think it's reallife.

When sett ing up a new game in the dressups area, new and separate identities aretaken by 4-year-olds:

(A): What's your fake name going tobe? (no response.) What's your fake namegoing to be?

(B): Clara.(A) : Go buy some groceries. What's

your name again?The following examples illustrate how

not realizing that someone is "in character"can lead to conflict:1. (S) sits with stuffed dragon puppet,makes a face and growls at one of the girlsas she walks near.

(E ): S, I'm telling.(S): I'm a baby dragon.(E): Oh. (in a tone that implies that it

is okay; she does not go to tell an adult)2. (E), (J), and (A) are in the dress ups area.

(E): We live here.(J): No, you do not. (spoken asser­

tively as he blocks the door )(E) begins to cry and (A) leaves the dressups area. It is not clear whether (E) is reallycrying or pretending to cry . (J) puts thecloak up over the doorway, blocking hisview.

(J): I don't want to see little girls cry .(E) gives a small cry, now definitely

playing.(J): I'm a fairy-a good fairy.The use of the word "pretend" is also

used to keep order, to direct or maintainscript control, and to support the sequencewhen it shifts or seems to falter . The actualterm "pretend" was used only once with theyoungest group, in one-fourth ofthe 4- to 5­year-old sequences, and in one-third ofthe5- to 6-year-old sequences. An example ofthe use of "pretend" when the script ap­pears to falter is demonstrated when (N)shows (SF) how to dial "911":

(N): Some kids at our school are mak-ing everybody hurting.

(SF): I'm calling the police(N): Pretend you're the doctor.(SF): I'm not a doctor.(N): Pretend.

In another case , one child attempted tochange the story line, without success:

(E): They left Lassie there and okay.(SF): Pretend they had a pet horse.

Friends had a pet horse and they playedwith him.

(E): We're not playing horses, and ifyou have to play with horses, then you'llhave to play alone.

One day (D) brought some gold-paintedrocks to the class for show-and-tell. Hedescribed them as "gold." (J) did not believethat the rocks were really gold and statedhis disbelief several times to (D ) and to theteacher. The teacher did not respond to (J).During free time, (D) wanted to play withthe "gold" and joined (J) in a pretend game,using the "gold" as a prop. The two boysdidn't usually play together, but the "gold"for (D) and the "debate" for (J) drew themtogether. They had to struggle to establishand maintain the imaginary game. Of allthe recorded sequences, this sequence in­cluded the greatest number ofcommands to"pretend."

(D): Pretend we found some gold.(J): Pretend we found some gold lava

rocks, too.(D): We can have some company over;

we have to hide our rocks so we can findthem.

(J):(D):(J ):(D):

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

(J): How about . .. and I had to look forthem and you hid them.(J) goes to dress ups.closet and hides his eyeswhile (D) hides the rocks in the dress ups.

(J): Ready or not.(D): I'm not ready.

(D) finishes hiding rocks and (J) comes outof the closet and finds them.

(D): Do I hide them again?(J): I'd rather not play that. Pretend

we're brother and sister and we have to goto the movies.

Rule 2. Engage others. The type ofparallel pretend play seen among the 3- to4-year-olds is not observed among olderchildren. Playing together and contribut­ing to the game in progress promotes con­tinued play. In the youngest group, thechildren seem to engage each other almostby accident. Most direct communicationoccurs using the telephone. (K) and (B) arethe only two children in the dress ups area,but show no signs of interacting. (B) isputting on his cape, a usual prelude to hisgame of Batman. (K) walks to the phoneand picks it up, saying "Hello," and (B) goesto the second phone and picks it up . (K)continues, "I need to go to the store, and Ineed you to watch out for my baby."

In the following sequence, players en­gage one another and negotiate the game:Two boys are playing in the dress ups area:

(T): You be the baby and I'll be thepuppy.

(F): Why can't we both be puppies?(T): No, if you be the baby, I can give

you a ride on my back. (said persuasively)(F): Ooh .. . (said in excited, happy

tone)(T): Let's build with chairs.

They set up chairs as a "barrier" to enclosea space within the dress ups area. The boyssing as they work. Another child joins in:

(G): I'm a pilot.(T): We're not playing pilot; we're play­

ing puppies .(G): Can I play?(T): Yeah, but you have to be a pilot

(seems to have meant "puppy" and the childseems to understand).

(G): I'm a pilot puppy.

CONSTRAINTS OF PRETEND PLAY

Rule 3. Continue the pretend sequence.Continued engagement requires allowancefor each child to incorporate his or her ideasinto the sequence. Parallel stories some­times occur as children allow for variedinterpretations. This was seen earlier inthe designation of "gold" vs. "lava rocks"and can be seen in the following scenariosas well.

A group of girls are playing on one of theoutdoor playground structures. The struc­ture consists of a platform, side slats toclimb up to the platform, and logs thatextend from the sides that are often riddenas "ponies." It is a breezy day, with cloudsin the sky that cover and uncover the sun.The girls are using sand and calling it"chocolate," "medicine," and "magic," alter­natively.

(8): Oh, no. The clouds are closing!(D): (screams)(E): Bring the medicine.(D): Here's the magic.(E): No, it's medicine.(8) : I know. Here's more magic.

Engagement also involves keeping thelevel of excitement either at a stable orincreasing pitch and keeping the storyline moving, as illustrated in this ex­ample of children playing "Peter Pan" onthe playground:

(8) : Come on, everybody. This is Cap­tain Hook's ship.

(D): Hurry up, everybody. Bring thebaby.

(M): We have to save the baby.(8): She can swim.(P): Come on, mermaid.(D): Come on. Quick. Get magic.

There's fire on the ground; you have toclimb up .

(M): You're in the fire; get up fast.

DiscussionChildren in all three classes appeared tobecome progressively more aware of struc­ture and rules involved in pretend play.Children's increased skills in perspectivetaking, as well as their decreased egocen­tric thinking was evident in the ways inwhich children communicated with each

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

CURRAN

other throughout the pretend sequences.Children in the youngest group, playing ina more parallel format, failed to recognizethat the other children in the pretend playarea were not engaged in their theme, andthey failed to communicate the theme inprogress to newcomers to the play area.The 4- to 5-year-old children, who are typi­cally moving toward concrete operationalthinking, maintained some rigidity ofthink­ing (as in the case of the real versus pretendgold sequence, or making parallel conflict­ing statements), but they also recognizedthe possibility of another's perspective.Children in the 5- to 6-year-old class usedtheir articulated understanding of rules toassist them in negotiating ways to includemultiple perspectives into a pretend theme.The explicit rules matched those of anysocial activity in the classroom, implyingthat these rules may well have been taughtto the children. Children's use of theserules increased dramatically over the agesstudied, from no use at all to as many as70% of the sequences recorded.

The implicit rules seem to be con­structed; that is, determined as a result ofthe children's own experiences. Childrenhad difficulty articulatingthese constraints,but acted within them because they hadexperienced the results of actions that doand do not maintain a pretend sequence.Their acceptance of rules, especially thebroad directive ofthe use of the term "pre­tend," provided some support for the ideathat children who are presented problemtasks in a pretend context may take specialnote of rules that apply in the testing con­text.

Also , the stated assertion that everyonecan play anything he or she so chooses inpretend play supports the concept of mul­tiple possibilities necessary for reasoninglogically. Pretending implies that thereare many choices of roles and actions thatplayers can choose from, while still attend­ing to a broader plot. Children believe thatin this context there are no rules regardinghow a theme must be played out; any ideathat is engaging will be accepted . As chil­dren are busy learning the requirements,

rules, and regulations ofthe school commu­nity, pretending appears to be a skill thatrequires both divergent thinking and acomprehension of rule structure that en­tails an ability to categorize and order.These skills complement each other in achild's development ofreasoning.

Taking a Piagetian perspective, the de­velopment ofrules in pretend play is closelyrelated to the development of cognitiveskills (i.e., a decrease in egocentric think­ing and an increased ability to takeanother's perspective). Most of the chil­dren observed here would be classified aspreoperational thinkers, yet the develop­ment ofmore sophisticated thinking is clearas children become less egocentric and lessrigid in the ways they approach pretendplay. Limited social cognition is most evi­dent among the youngest group and leastevident among the oldest group in the waysthey play together. Taking a Vygotskianperspective, the use of pretend play repre­sents opportunities for scaffolding the de­velopment and use of rules related topretend play. Children identified for eachother occasions where rules had not beenfollowed, and they articulated rules whenviolations occur. Those children identifiedas master players assisted the others indeveloping skills of social cognition andlogical reasoning as they presented possi­bilities for themes to be played out . BothPiaget and Vygotsky recognized the valueof pretend play and its contributions tothe development of social and cognitiveskills.

Generally, in experimental studies (e.g.,Dansky, 1980; Dias & Harris, 1988;Hawkins, Pea, Glick, & Scribner, 1984),the intention behind including pretensewith reasoning tasks has been to eithermake the task more familiar to the children(as a play format) or to separate generalknowledge from knowledge gained throughlogical deduction. The results ofthis studyindicate that an additional factor in theimproved performance on reasoning tasksgiven in a pretend mode might be thegeneralization ofthe command "pretend."Pretend indicates an expectation for fol-

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

lowing another's rules while still incorpo­rating a divergent thinking set. It signalsto children that certain implicit and ex­plicit rules are in use. Further efforts tostudy the use of these rules on reasoningtasks are in order.

ConclusionChildren are sensitive to both explicit andimplicit rule structures during the pre­school years, certainly prior to their abilityto extend play to rule-based games. Duringpretend play, they are able to apply expli citrules and also construct the implicit rulesnecessary for extended social interactions.

The expected value of developing theserule structures is the continued develop­ment oflogical reasoning skills, especiallythe divergent skills associated with bothcritical and creative thinking. The consid­eration of multiple possibilities marks afirst step toward future formal operationalreasoning.

Teachers who recognize the value ofsuch rule structures may choose to spendmore time assisting children in developingpretend themes and sequences. Improvi­sational drama opportunities could be in­corporated into classroom activities as ameans of highlighting rule structures in avariety of academic disciplines. Sufficientevidence now exists that pretend play con­tributes to children's social and cognitivedevelopment, that children can and do learnhow to pretend play, and that teachers cansuccessfully interact with children withina pretend play context to promote and en­hance pretend play (Trawick-Smith, 1998 ).Recognizing skill components of the playitself provides an opportunity to createconnections between play and other con­texts for learning.

Throughout the pretend sequences ref­erenced here, one can see children's devel­opment of skills in structuring narrative,negotiating with others, and in shiftingroles from pretend to reality and back topretend. These are remarkably sophi st i­cated skills that are required throughoutlife in social interactions. Moreover, creat­ing and acting out pretend themes contrib-

CONSTRAINTS OF PRETEND PLAY

ute to children's awareness of multiple pos­sibilities of options in a variety of situa­tions within a structured framework ofexplicit and implicit rules ,which ultimatelycontributes to the development of criticalthinking and social skill s .

ReferencesBateson, G. (1956). A theory ofplay and fantasy . In

steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177-193). NewYork: Chandler Publishing.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bikl en , S . K. (1982 ). Qua lita tiveresearch for education: An introduct ion to theoryand metho ds. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon .

Dan sky, J . L. (1980). Mak e-believe: A medi ator ofth e rel ationsh ip between free play and associativefluency . Child Developm ent, 51 , 576-579.

Dias, M. G., & Harris , P . L. (1988) . Th e effect ofmake-belie ve play on deductive reasoning. Brit ishJ ournal of Developm ental Psychology, 6,210-221.

Garvey, C. (1990) . Play . Cambridge, MA: HarvardUn iversity Press.

Giffen, H. (19 84). The coordin ation of sha re dme aning in the creation of share d make-believereality. In I. Bretherton (Ed .), Symbol ic play:Th e representation of social understanding (pp.73-100). Orl ando, FL : Academic.

Hawkins, J ., Pea , R. D., Glick, J. , & Scribner, S.(1984). "Merds that laugh don 't like mushrooms":Evidence for deductive reasoning by preschooler s .Developmental Psychology, 20 , 584-594.

Piaget, J . (196 2). Play, dreams an d imitati on inchi ld hood . New York: Norton.

Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociod ramaticplay on d isadvantaged preschool chi ldren . NewYork: Wile y.

Traw ick-Smith ,J . (1998). Why play training works:An integrated model for play interve nt ion . Jour­nal of R esearch in Child hood Education, 12 , 117­129 .

Vygotsky, L. S. (1976). Play a nd it s role in themental development of the child. In J . S. Bruner,A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds,), Play : It s role indevelopmen t an d evolutio n (pp. 537 -554). NewYork: Penguin.

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

-Milw

auke

e] a

t 00:

21 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014