Foundations of Play Theory: Doris Bergen

1
Foundations of Play Theory

Doris Bergen
INTRODUCTION manifestation of play, such as animal physical

play or children’s fantasy play, and others try-
Although play has existed as a part of human ing to probe the underlying meanings of all
experience since early times, theories regarding types of play with broad definitional theo-
its definition and cause, purpose, value, mean- ries. Four major strands of play theory have
ing, nature, effects and influence have been influenced present views of the theoretical
diverse and often controversial. Some theorists meaning of play: 1) defining the characteris-
have focused on only one of the manifestations tics of the behaviour called play; 2) examining
of play while others have focused on many dif- aspects of animal play and its meaning;
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
ferent aspects. Playfulness, in its varied forms, 3) examining the role of play as a socio-
is a pervasive phenomenon seen in animal spe- cultural phenomenon and adaptive life
cies, a common behaviour of human children quality throughout the lifespan; and 4) focus-
and an observable behaviour in the lives of ing on the role of various types of play in
human adults. According to Gordon (2009), the fostering children’s development and educa-
nature of play has been described differently by tion. This chapter provides an overview of
theorists in various disciplines, and they have the foundations of play theory, giving atten-
‘come to different conclusions about the nature tion to all of these theoretical perspectives.
of play’ (3). Göncü and Gaskins (2007) assert
that because play is such a complex phenome-
non, it has often been difficult to ‘integrate its EARLY THEORIES OF PLAY
multiple perspectives’ (4).
Play theory, therefore, is a wide-ranging Plato, in his book of Laws (643 bce), was one
topic, with some theorists giving definitions of the first to make the phenomenon of play
of the term ‘play’ and describing its purposes a subject of theoretical interest. He suggested
narrowly, others focusing on describing one that children’s play (paidia) had theoretical
Brooker, L., Blaise, M., & Edwards, S. (Eds.). (2014). Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from scu on 2019-03-09 03:11:02.
02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 9 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

10 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF PLAY AND LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
significance as a venue for learning and for Locke (1693), who saw children as tabulae
developing basic habits of character (paideia). rasae (blank slates) at birth, suggested that
According to Morris (1998), Plato believed children should be taught through positive
that ‘play is a medium of activity in which playful experiences to promote rational and
the player’s natural underlying dispositions individual needs, rather than by methods that
are revealed… and… (is)… the ideal medium made them fearful. He recommended indoor
of a child’s paideia; that is, learning is most block play, however, rather than rowdy out-
effective when play is its medium’ (1998:114). door play. While play began to be viewed by
Plato suggested that the correct way to edu- these theorists as having a positive role in
cate children (both boys and girls) was to children’s development and education, they
allow them to engage in play that promoted did not really make explicit what might be
growth of their abilities, and that this would the specific qualities of play that made it an
result in adults who were able to use their important influence on children’s develop-
abilities effectively. Thus, the theoretical ment. However, their influence was a factor
idea of play as an educational venue can be in later theoretical views of play as a facilita-
traced back to these early times. tor of children’s development and education.
RENAISSANCE/ENLIGHTENMENT LATE NINETEENTH-AND EARLY

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TWENTIETH-CENTURY THEORIES OF
PLAY PLAY
Specifically stated theoretical positions Although these earlier theories continued to

regarding the role of play and its value as a have influence during later centuries, theo-
means for assisting children’s development retical ideas concerning play as a particularly
and learning began to be more evident during meaningful factor that promoted children’s
the Renaissance. For example, Comenius development and education began to be
(1632, 1657) emphasized the view that chil- made more explicit during this time period.
dren’s playful activity had educational
meaning. He wrote two books advising that Theories Defining Characteristics
children’s learning would be fostered by
and Purposes of Play
interesting and playful activities. His books
were so popular at that time that they were Theorists such as Spencer (1873), Schiller
translated into 40 languages. (1875), Lazarus (1883) and Seashore (1913)

In the period of the Enlightenment, the were interested in the meaning of play, and
influence of Rousseau’s book Emile (pub- they provided some of the definitions of
lished in 1762) emphasized the role of playful play that have continued to be influential.
activity in children’s lives. Rousseau believed These theorists addressed play’s origin and
that children were born innately good and hypothesized about its purpose. For example,
thus, instead of having adults rigidly control- Seashore stated that play was free self-
ling their behaviour, should have the freedom expression and its purpose was the pleasure
to develop in their own natural ways. Since gained by self-expression; Schiller theorized
playing is a natural activity of children when that children had excess energy and play was
they are allowed to control their own activi- a means to expend this exuberant energy;
ties, Rousseau asserted that their development Spencer viewed play as activity performed
would be positive in this condition. Thus, his for immediate gratification without thought
perspective is one that promoted an apprecia- of long-term benefit; and Lazarus defined
tion of the play of children at that time. Even play as a free, aimless and diverting activity

Foundations of Play Theory 11
without purpose. (See Mitchell and Mason, built upon children’s natural play abilities.
1948, for more details on these early defini- Froebel, the designer of the kindergarten
tions of play.) The idea of defining play – that (‘children’s garden’), provided a set of toys
is, identifying its essential characteristics – (gifts) for children that were supposed to
has continued to be of theoretical interest. extend their learning as the children played
through a set of activities that these toys pro-
moted, and Montessori set up Children’s
Theories Derived from Observing
Houses, which provided activities that were
Animal Play
initially close to children’s existing play
Theorists during this period also speculated behaviours but then provided ordered/
about the meanings of animal play and the sequenced materials (work!) to enhance those
implications for human play theory. For behaviours. Their views of structured play
example, Groos (1898, 1901) discussed both environments as ideal starting points for chil-
animal and human play and thought that play dren’s education continue to be supported by
was instinctive practice behaviour that many present-day play theorists (see Elkind,
assisted in preparing individuals for later use 1983; Bryant and Clifford, 1992).
of the skills that were needed in adulthood The American psychological theorists who
(for both animals and humans), but also that influenced how play was viewed during this
for adult humans, play provided relief from time period were Hall and Dewey, leaders in
the stresses of life. He proposed a ‘recreation the child development movement. Hall (1920,
theory’ of play that explained why adults 1924) is viewed as the founder of the field of
often took refuge in play when they had lives child development. His theoretical perspec-
that were consumed by work and anxieties. tive on play was influenced by Darwin and
Mitchell (1912) and Kohler (1931) studied thus he believed children went through stages
the play of animals and concluded that play in their play that demonstrated the stages of
served a purpose of socialization as well human evolution. At an early age in play they
as assisting young animals to develop behav- manipulate objects; later they replicate simple
iours needed by adults of the species. adult activities in pretence, and their games
Theoretical insights about the socialization reflect skills needed in more advanced civili-
meanings of animal play, gained from focused zation. Thus, to have a well-developed adult,
study of animal play, have enriched hypothe- there must first be a well-played child. While
ses about the meaning of play for humans this theory is not accepted as accurate today,
(see Pellis and Iwaniuk, 2004). it did contribute to the idea that children’s
play was an essential part of their early devel-

Theories Focused on Play in opment and that play experiences enabled
them to be more effective in adulthood.
Education and Child Development
Although Dewey (1910, 1916) was influ-
European theorists Froebel (1887), Pestalozzi enced by Darwin and Hall, his theoretical
(1894) and Montessori (1914) all stressed the orientation focused on applying theory to
importance of playful activity as a means of practice, and thus he drew on Rousseau,
educating children. Pestalozzi designed an Froebel and other theorists who saw play as
educative system that drew on Rousseau’s a venue for childhood education. He believed
theoretical ideas. He suggested that children that the educative environment for children
be free to explore aspects of their environ- required their active involvement in self-
ment through their play and that the teacher’s chosen, playful experiences, because these
role was to observe and reflect on how to help would lead to child learning, and he demon-
them learn in that way. Froebel and Montessori strated his ideas at the University of Chicago
both designed educational environments that laboratory school. In play, children find

problems to solve, and since Dewey (1938) the most playful humans were the ones who
believed finding problems was the essential had the greatest range of adaptive behaviours
first step in problem-solving, he supported that they could use when environmental
children’s play as a means of helping them or social conditions changed. Ellis stated
discover and solve problems. Research on that play was ‘necessary for our evolution’
children’s play activities was common at (1998: 29) because it is ‘a biological system
university laboratory preschools during this for promoting rapid adaptation to threats to
time period. One early researcher was Parten survival that cannot be predicted’ (30).
(1932), who derived a schema of social play Another influential definition of play was
stages, including solitary, parallel, associa- that of Bateson (1956), who explored the
tive and cooperative, from her observational paradoxical nature of play, suggesting that it
research. Adaptations of the schema have is a form of metacommunication. He stated
been used in many play studies conducted in that in play, animals and humans operate
more recent times (see Coplan, Rubin, and within a ‘play frame’, in which behavioural
Findlay, 2006). and verbal signals do not convey the same
message as they would if used outside that
play frame. Instead, players send the mes-
MID- TO LATE TWENTIETH-CENTURY sage ‘this is play’ and thus the message
THEORIES OF PLAY conveyed by their play behaviour is different
from the meaning of that behaviour when
During the mid-twentieth century, play displayed outside the play frame. He
became a greater focus both of empirical and described the signals and understandings that
theoretical study by biologists, sociologists, occur among players so that they can com-
ethologists and anthropologists, as well as municate meaningfully within the play
educators and psychologists. frame. Hutt (1971) theorized about the dif-
ference between ludic activity (play) and
Theories Defining Characteristics epistemic activity (exploration), which have
and Purposes of Play some similar qualities. She stated that in
exploration children find out objects’ charac-
An influential piece of work by Huizinga teristics but in play they find out what they
(1950) emphasized the idea of play as a per- can do with objects. That is, in play the
vasive cultural experience that is tied to object may be used in elaborated ways.
human survival. Huizinga believed that play Neumann (1971) theorized that since play
was such an integral behaviour in the human is a voluntary activity, certain dimensions
species that he called humans Homo Ludens within the individual and external to the indi-
(‘man, the player’). He outlined a number of vidual could be evaluated in determining if
the characteristics of play: it is voluntary; an activity could be called play. The dimen-
separated from real life; occurs within a sions she identified involved how much
frame or boundary; is ordered (has rules); internal control the person had over the activ-
and involves private spaces. Henricks (2002) ity, what level of internal reality was present
states that although there have been many and if there was internal motivation to engage
critiques and revisions of Huizinga’s view, in the activity. She stated that most playful
‘modern scholars stand on the shoulders of actions have children in control, making up
Johan Huizinga’ (23). Huizinga’s view of the their own reality and doing the activity
evolutionary importance of play has been because they want to do it. Rubin, Fein, and
supported by Ellis (1998). For instance, Ellis Vandenberg (1983) theorized that the defini-
(1998) believes that play has been a means tion of play must include active engagement,
for humans to survive the many uncertainties non-instrumental actions, focus on means not
they have faced since ancient times, because ends, internal motivation, internal rules and

internal locus of control. Bergen (1988) routines and to learn how to master aggres-
defined play as a ‘medium’ in which learning sive impulses by using those behaviours in
and development are fostered, and Barnett controlled, playful ways.
(1998) outlined the characteristics of In studies of chimpanzees in the wild, Van
‘playfulness’. There have been many expan- Lawick-Goodall (1968) found all mother
sions and critiques of these definitions in chimpanzees engaged in some play with their
recent times (see Gordon, 2009). infants, although there were different levels
There is evidence that children also have of such play, and hypothesized that its pur-
theories about play’s characteristics. For pose was social bonding. Lorenz (1971)
example, King (1979, 1982) found that kinder indicated that, for many animal species, the
garten children used criteria such as if an curiosity exhibited in young animal play is
activity was imposed by the teacher and if it an essential characteristic, enabling expres-
was enjoyable to define whether or not it was sion of new behaviours in varied settings. He
play, and at later ages, they had an ‘in- commented that the curiosity evident in
between’ category that identified some childhood play is exhibited in humans
required activity as having playful character- throughout life, and compared the play of
istics but not really being play. Fein and children to the research of adult scientists.
Wiltz (1998) reported that when children talk Recent research has studied how the ‘playful
about their pretence, they mention activities brain’ evolved in animal and human species
done at home or in the neighbourhood but (Iwaniuk et al, 2001; Pellis and Iwaniuk,
not at school, because school activities are 2004).
‘not the play children describe with relish
and delight many years later’ (47). Theories of Play as a Socio-
cultural Phenomenon
Theories Derived from Observing
Sociologists and anthropologists have also
Animal Play
theorized about the meanings of the play
In studies of animals, biologists, ethologists behaviours they observed in varied socio-
and psychologists have noted that certain cultural settings. For example, Leacock
conditions elicited playful behaviour in ani- (1976) described the play of African village
mals that they were studying, both in children and theorized that it was ‘a rehearsal
laboratories and at field sites, and have for adult roles’ (467). Whiting and Pope
speculated on the meanings of such behav- Edwards (1988), after conducting a cross-
iours. For example, Suomi and Harlow cultural study of children’s social activity
(1972) found that rhesus monkeys raised in and play, concluded that, while children
social isolation in a laboratory appeared to played in all cultures, the types of play were
have deficits in play behaviours, but if they malleable under social pressure, accounting
were then allowed to play with younger mon- for differences among boys’ and girls’ play
keys, they recovered social behaviours. and the types of play in various cultures. That
Harlow and colleagues (1950) also observed is, play reflects the cultural meanings of the
that when monkeys were given puzzles to society in which it occurs (Gaskins, this vol-
manipulate, they did not need food reinforce- ume). Documentation of the social–cultural
ments, and concluded that there was a meanings of play has continued to be of theo-
‘manipulation drive’ that is as primary as are retical interest (see Roopnarine and
more basic homeostatic drives. They did not Krishnakumar, 2006).
identify this behaviour as play, however. Opie and Opie (1969) gave an exhaustive
Suomi and Harlow (1976) did speculate that account of English children’s play in the streets
play served two purposes in monkeys: ena- and schoolyards and concluded that there
bling them to practise adult social functioning was a culture of childhood that perpetuated

these games. They theorized that the function truly, he rearranges the things of his world and
of the game was primarily a social one orders it in a new way’ (1917/1956: 123). Freud
because it was not that important to win and believed that the child’s playful activity was
in some ways these were ‘ceremonial’ activi- later transformed into adult playful thought. He
ties, in that following the rituals of the game suggested that adults create fantasy (much of it
were important. Smith (1978, 1982) exten- internal) rather than continuing to play as chil-
sively examined the evolutionary and dren do. Freud discussed how the joking
functional qualities of children’s play as well behaviour of adults emerges from children’s
as the longitudinal aspects of social play play by describing how children’s playful
development, and Sutton-Smith and activity is often the earliest form of humour
Rosenberg (1961) documented the changing expression, marked by exuberance and nonsen-
nature of informal games over a 60-year sical qualities. He saw joking as a form of
period. Both Smith and Sutton-Smith have playful thought in later childhood and adult-
continued to elaborate on their theoretical hood, and he asserted that ‘the pleasure in a
perspectives in recent years. joke is derived from play with words or from
Blurton-Jones (1972) charted categories of the liberation of nonsense’ (1960: 287).
children’s play in various world areas and Freud’s youngest daughter, Anna,
compared rough-and-tumble play of pre- expanded understandings of the role of play
school children to that of other young in helping children face reality. In her work
animals. He theorized that this behaviour with children who had experienced the
served a social function and might occur in a trauma of war and parental separation, she
critical period. Recent work on this play phe- developed a ‘therapeutic’ play environment
nomenon by Pellegrini (2002, 2009) suggests in which children could play out their emo-
that the purpose of this play in childhood tions caused by traumatic stress. She stated
differs from its purpose in adolescence. The that play therapy helps the child develop a
rich database drawn from such studies has secret world, using imagination and fantasy,
provided theoretical insights into the role of and it is free from external demands (Freud,
play as an enculturation medium. 1989). Other contemporary and later theo-
rists expanded on these views regarding the
emotional purposes that play serves (e.g.
Theories Focused on Play in Klein, 1932; Isaacs, 1933; Lowenfeld, 1935).
Education and Child Development This theoretical view has led to further
work in the field of play therapy. Winnicott
Ideas of play as a phenomenon fostering (1953) extended the psychoanalytic play

development and education were furthered therapy tradition and Axline (1969) and
by the theoretical giants of the era, who Moustakas (1974) laid foundations for ‘non-
focused on play’s role in promoting socio- directive’ play therapy, which envisions play
emotional or cognitive benefits. as being powerful enough to heal emotional
trauma without active therapist intervention.
Although methodologies and treatment mod-
Freudian theory
els have continued to advance, the use of
Freud (1917/1956, 1938, 1960), within his play in the treatment of childhood trauma is
theory of psychosexual development, discussed still based on the foundation provided by
aspects of children’s play and adult playful early theorists (see Wilson and Ryan, 2005).
thought. He saw the early childhood period as
one in which the child at play creates a world in Eriksonian theory
which he can feel in control, stating that the
child ‘behaves like an imaginative writer, in Erikson (1963, 1977) expanded on the theo-
that he creates a world of his own or, more retical meaning of play and its enormous

power in children’s lives. He described how that play is primarily an assimilation process
children use both pretence and construction while imitation is primarily an accommoda-
play to gain control over their emotional tion process. He believed that children used
lives and asserted that the feelings of power play to construct their knowledge of the
over their life events that children gain from world by trying to relate their new experi-
pretence allows both expression of emotions ences to their existing cognitive schema.
and practice in controlling emotions respon- Piaget stated that adults could gain great
sibly. He theorized that this occurs during the insight into children’s thinking by watching
‘Play Age’ (three–six), which sets the direc- children’s play, and he explained how vari-
tion of adult life. Erikson described children’s ous stages of play corresponded with levels
creation of block construction ‘worlds’, of the child’s developing thought processes.
which allowed them to deal with emotional In the infant–toddler age period, the most
and behavioural ‘real-world’ dilemmas. He prominent type of play is practice play,
asserted that, by taking on the role of a super- which involves repeating similar play actions
character (e.g. Spiderman) or an adult who is on toys or other objects to master their use,
powerful in their lives (e.g. the doctor), chil- with gradual elaboration of these actions.
dren experience the leadership and power Piaget noted that one crucial aspect of prac-
position of those individuals. He suggested tice play is that, rather than being a routine
that if they gain this ability to take initiative repetition of the same actions, as actions are
during this period of life, they will be able to mastered the child changes the play activity
assume roles of power and leadership and to by making it more difficult or adding new
imagine possibilities. Thus, they develop the elements. Practice play is seen in later child-
strength of ‘Purpose’ and can allow ‘the hood and adulthood when new routines of
dreams of early childhood to be attached to behaviour need to be mastered in the service
the goals of an active adult life’ (1963: 20). of a larger goal.
Erikson believed that the play rituals of Piaget noted that pretence becomes a
childhood continue to be expressed through- major play mode during the age period of
out life because these experiences provide four–seven. Early pretence is often facili-
‘the training ground for the experience of a tated by adults but extends into elaborate
leeway of imaginative choices within an social pretence activities with peers, such
existence governed and guided by roles and as socio-dramatic or fantasy play, during
visions’ (1977: 78). He stated (1966) that preschool and early years. Piaget’s view
children’s play is transformed into ritualiza- that pretence is a means of furthering
tions (e.g. weddings, parades), which have a knowledge construction has led to much
paradoxical quality because they are both research on cognitive processes. Because,
playful and formal, familiar and surprising, in pretence, children create worlds that
and affirming and ambivalent. make sense to them, Piaget believed that
observers of play could learn much about
children’s understandings and misunder-
Piagetian theory
standings. Pretence continues to be a major
Piaget’s contribution to play theory (1945, type of play during early and later years,
1965) was of great interest in the mid to late although it may then involve small-scale
twentieth century. From his observations of replica figures or computer video sites
his own children’s play in infancy (1945) and (Bergen and Davis, 2011).
his study of older boys’ marble game play Piaget identified games with rules as the
(1965), he both proposed stages of play common play type for young children,
development and theorized about their mean- although one-rule games such as peek-a-
ing as developmental constructs. Piaget boo occur at earlier ages (Bruner and
differentiated play from imitation, indicating Sherwood, 1976). Piaget believed that in

games, children create rules that change as must follow cultural scripts, was an especially
they negotiate to make the game enjoyable important aspect of play because it enabled
for a range of players with varied skill levels. children to learn self-regulation and to develop
Time is spent in discussion of rules, making a range of spontaneous concepts (1967).
them ‘fair’ and adapting them to make the Vygotsky stated: ‘there is no such thing as play
game more ‘fun’. Piaget asserted that peer without rules. The imaginary situation of any
play in games fosters children’s moral devel- form of play already contains rules of behavior’
opment as children resolve cognitive (1978: 74). He asserted that play enabled
disequilibrium related to issues of fairness thought to be separated from objects and
and equity in peer play. actions, thus promoting ideas to control the
Piaget’s theoretical ideas about children’s play. As children grow older and their language
play continue to be a catalyst for generating becomes internalized private speech, these
play theory. Numerous contemporary theo- abilities continue to develop until individuals
rists have speculated about its influence on achieve mastery of their own behaviour by
role and perspective-taking, social compari- using symbolic means (Vygotsky and Luria,
sons, language narration, social script 1994). Although much of this imaginative play
knowledge and academic learning. For occurs in the company of other people,
example, Bruner (1961) suggested that ‘dis- Vygotsky also discussed ‘director’s play’ that
covery learning’ should be the mode for occurs when a child is alone (Kravstova, in this
learning mathematics, Elkind (1976) adapted volume). Then the child develops the scripts,
Piagetian perspectives to early childhood builds the settings, and gives all characters
education, Fein (1981) and Bretherton voice. Older children often do this with small-
(1984) discussed the role of pretence in cog- scale objects and create their own ‘worlds’,
nitive development and the Singers (1990) which also have cultural meaning (Bodrova and
examined its role in creativity and imagina- Leong, 2011).
tive thinking. Vygotsky stressed the role of pretend play
as a means of organizing thought through
verbal mediation, enabling self-regulation to
Vygotskian theory develop. This latter strand of his theory has
The influence of Vygotsky’s theoretical ideas continued to be fruitful regarding the role of
(1967, 1978) became prominent more recently. fantasy and the relationship of play to cogni-
Vygotsky and his colleagues saw children’s tive skills such as literacy. His former student
play as important but the adult’s role also as El’konin (2005) has continued to make his
important in helping children use objects sym- theoretical views on play explicit. Other
bolically (El’konin, 1966). Vygotsky described theorists have promoted the use of playful
the age period from 2 to 8 as the time in which techniques to support the growth of self-
children learned the language of their culture regulation (see Bodrova and Leong, 2011;
and stated that this learning was evident in their Meyers and Berk, this volume) and to
play. At preschool age, children begin to use advance literacy development (see Christie
running monologues (i.e. ‘private’ speech) that and Roskos, 2000).
accompany their play activities and this fosters
the development of ‘spontaneous’ concepts.
Vygotsky observed that in block play children’s INFLUENCE OF FOUNDATIONAL
initial categorizations were unorganized but by THEORIES ON PRESENT-DAY PLAY
late preschool age, their concept development THEORY
is evident in their problem-solving with blocks.
However, he thought that pretence, espe- In contemporary scholarship the four strands
cially pretend role-taking, in which the child of play theory discussed above are still in

evidence, although they have been refined CONCLUSION

and challenged as researchers have continued
to test their premises. Many theories of play have served as founda-
A number of recent books have focused on tions for present play theory. They have
defining socio-cultural aspects of play added to the richness of definitions of play,
(Sutton-Smith, 2001), explaining animal play its evidence in many species, its role in
(Bekoff and Byers, 1998) and examining expressing cultural meanings and its impor-
developmental, educational and therapeutic tance as a venue for children’s development
aspects of play (O’Connor and Braveman, and learning. Theorists will continue to build
2009; Pelligrini, 2009). These works all build on these foundations to expand both the
on the theoretical foundation provided by meanings and the mysteries of play.
earlier theorists, which continues to influence
research and theoretical ideas. One newer
theoretical approach, however, has arisen REFERENCES
from dynamic systems theory, and this may
provide a new foundational component that Axline, V. M. (1969) Play Therapy. New York: Ballantine
will guide research and practice. Books.
Barnett, L. A. (1998) ‘The adaptive powers of being
playful’, in M. C. Duncan, G. Chick and A. Aycock
Play as a Dynamic System (eds), Diversions and Divergences in Fields of Play:
Play and Culture Studies: Volume 1. Greenwich, CT:
The most recent theoretical perspective on Praeger. pp. 97–120.
play draws on dynamic systems theory and Bateson, G. (1956) ‘The message “This is play”’, in
posits the view that one reason why theo- B. Schaffner (ed.), Group Processes: Transactions of
ries of play have been so diverse is that the Second Conference. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr.
play is a complex dynamic system that has Foundation. pp. 145–241.
characteristics of all such systems (see Bekoff, E. and Byers, J. A. (eds) (1998) Animal Play:
Thelen and Smith, 1994; Van Geert, 2000). Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological
For example, play is a self-organizing sys- Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University
tem that may appear chaotic but in which Press.
complex patterns of behaviour move Bergen, D. (1988) Play as Medium for Learning and
Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
towards order. The play state also shows
Bergen, D. and Davis, D. (2011) ‘Influences of
disequilibrium, because it is always capable technology-related playful activity and thought on
of change; its attractor states may be long
moral development’, American Journal of Play, 4(1):

or short, and it involves sensitive depend- 80–99.
ence on initial conditions because small Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1972) ‘Categories of child–child
inputs into play situations may cause dispa- interaction’, in N. G. Blurton-Jones (ed.), Ethological
rate results. There are control parameters, Studies of Child Behavior. New York: Cambridge
which include differences in play patterns University Press. pp. 97–129.
due to the age and skill of players; limita- Bodrova, E. and Leong, D. J. (2011) ‘Revisiting
tions on experience and types of settings Vygotskian perspectives on play and language’, in
available for play; interdependence, S. Rogers (ed.), Rethinking Play and Pedagogy. New
York: Routledge. pp. 60–72.
because all levels of play are interrelated;
Bretherton, I. (ed.) (1984) Symbolic Play: The
and soft assembly, with both stable Development of Social Understanding. New York:
and dynamic alternating periods. Vanderven Academic Press. pp. 131–158.
has described play from this theoretical Bruner, J. S. (1961) ‘The act of discovery’, Harvard
perspective (Vanderven, 1998), which will Educational Review, 31(1): 21–32.
probably influence both play theory and Bruner, J. S. and Sherwood, V. (1976) ‘Peek-a-boo and
research in the future. the learning of rule structures’, in J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly

and K. Sylva (eds), Play: Its Role in Development and Freud, A. (1989) ‘Child analysis as the study of mental
Evolution. New York: Basic Books. pp. 277–285. growth (normal and abnormal)’, in S. I. Greenspan
Bryant, D. M. and Clifford, R. M. (1992) ‘150 years of and G. H. Pollock (eds), The Course of Life: Volume 1:
kindergarten’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Infancy. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
7(2): 147–154. pp. 1–14.
Christie, J. and Roskos, K. (eds) (2000) Literacy and Play Freud, S. (1917/1956) Delusion and Dream. Boston,
in the Early Years: Cognitive, Ecological, and MA: Beacon Press.
Sociocultural Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Freud, S. (1938) The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud
Erlbaum. (A. A. Brill, trans.) New York: Random House.
Comenius, J. A. (1632/1907) Didactic Magna. London: Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the
A. & C. Black. Unconscious. New York: Norton.
Comenius, J. A. (1657/1967) Orbis Pictus. London: Göncü, A. and Gaskins, S. (2007) Play and Development:
Oxford University Press. Evolutionary, Sociocultural, and Functional
Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H. and Findlay, L. C. (2006) Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
‘Social and nonsocial play’, in D. P. Fromberg and Gordon, G. (2009) ‘What is play? In search of a
D. Bergen (eds), Play from Birth to Twelve: Contexts, definition’, in D. Kushner (ed.), From Children to Red
Perspectives, and Meanings. (2nd ed.) New York: Hatters: Diverse Images and Issues of Play, Play and
Routledge. pp. 75–86. Culture Studies, Volume 8. Lanham, MD: University
Dewey, J. (1910/1997) How We Think. Toronto: Dover. Press of America. pp. 1–13.
Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. New York: Groos, K. (1898) The Play of Animals. New York: Appleton.
Macmillan. Groos, K. (1901) The Play of Man. New York: Heinemann.
Dewey, J. (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New Hall, G. S. (1920) Youth. New York: Appleton-Century.
York: Holt. Hall, G. S. (1924) Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its
Elkind, D. (1976) Child Development and Education: A Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology,
Piagetian Perspective. New York: Oxford University Sex, Crime, Religion and Education. New York: D.
Press. Appleton.
Elkind, D. (1983) ‘Montessori education: Abiding Harlow, H., Harlow, M. K. and Meyer, D. R. (1950)
contributions and contemporary challenges’, Young ‘Learning motivated by a manipulation drive’, Journal
Children, 38(2): 3–10. of Experimental Psychology, 40(2): 229–234.
El’konin, D. (1966) ‘Symbolics and its functions in the Henricks, T. (2002) ‘Huizinga’s contribution to play
play of children’, Soviet Education, 8(7): 35–41. studies: A reappraisal’, in J. L. Roopnarine (ed.),
El’konin, D. (2005) ‘On the historical origin of role play’, Conceptual, Social-Cognitive, and Contextual Issues
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, in the Fields of Play, Play and Culture Studies,
43(1): 11–21 (originally published 1978). Volume 8. Westport, CT: Ablex. pp. 23–52.
Ellis, M. J. (1998) ‘Play and the origin of the species’, in Huizinga, J. (1950) Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play
D. Bergen (ed.), Readings from Play as a Learning Element in Culture. New York: Harper & Row.
Medium. Olney, MD: ACEI. pp. 29–31. Hutt, C. (1971) ‘Exploration and play in children’, in
Erikson, E. H. (1963) Childhood and Society. (2nd ed.) R. E. Herron and B. Sutton-Smith (eds), Child’s Play.
New York: Norton. New York: Wiley. pp. 231–252.
Erikson, E. H. (1966) ‘Ontogeny of ritualization in man’, Isaacs, S. (1933) Social Development in Young Children.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, New York: Schocken.
251(772): 337–349. Iwaniuk, A. N., Nelson, J. E. and Pellis, S. M. (2001) ‘Do
Erikson, E. H. (1977) Toys and Reason. New York: big-brained animals play more? Comparative analysis
Norton. of play and relative brain size in mammals’, Journal
Fein, G. (1981) ‘Pretend play in childhood: An of Comparative Psychology, 115(1): 29–41.
integrative review’, Child Development, 52(4): 1095– King, N. (1979) ‘Play: The kindergarteners’ perspective’,
1118. Elementary School Journal, 80(2): 81–87.
Fein, G. G. and Wiltz, N. W. (1998) ‘Play as children see King, N. (1982) ‘Work and play in the classroom’, Social
it’, in D. P. Fromberg and D. Bergen (eds), Play from Education, 46(2): 110–113.
Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Contexts, Perspectives, Klein, M. (1932) The Psycho-Analysis of Children.
and Meanings. New York: Garland Press. pp. 37–49. London: Hogarth Press.
Froebel, F. (1887) The Education of Man. New York: Kohler, W. (1931) The Mentality of Apes. (2nd ed.) New
Appleton-Century. York: Harcourt Brace.

Lazarus, M. (1883) Über Die Reize des Spiels. Berlin: F. in D. P. Fromberg and D. Bergen (eds), Play from Birth
Dummler. to Twelve: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings.
Leacock, E. (1976) ‘At play in African villages’, in (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge. pp. 275–288.
J. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (eds), Play: Its Role in Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1911) Emile. New York: E. P.
Development and Evolution. New York: Basic Books. Dutton.
pp. 466–473. Rubin, K. N., Fein, G. G. and Vandenberg, B. (1983)
Locke, J. (1693/1910) ‘Some thoughts concerning ‘Play’, in E. M. Heterhington (ed.) and P. H. Mussen
education’, in C. W. Eliot (ed.), English Philosophers: (series ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume
Volume 37. New York: Villier. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development.
Lorenz, K. (1971) Studies in Animal and Human New York: Wiley. pp. 698–774.
Behavior. New York: Methuen. Seashore, C. E. (1913) Psychology of Daily Life. New
Lowenfeld, M. (1935/1991) Play in Childhood. London: York: D. Appleton.
Mac Keith Press. Schiller, F. (1875) Essays: Aesthetical and Philosophical.
Mitchell, C. P. (1912) The Childhood of Animals. New London: George Bell & Sons.
York: F. A. Stokes. Singer, D. G. and Singer, J. L. (1990) The House of Make-
Mitchell, E. D. and Mason, B. S. (1948) The Theory of believe: Children’s Play and the Developing Imagi
Play. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company. nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Montessori, M. (1914/1965) Dr. Montessori’s Own Smith, P. K. (1978) ‘A longitudinal study of social
Handbook. New York: Schocken. participation in preschool children: Solitary and
Morris, S. R. (1998) ‘No learning by coercion: Paidia and parallel play reexamined’, Developmental Psychology,
Paideia in Platonic philosophy’, in D. P. Fromberg and 14(5): 517–523.
D. Bergen (eds), Play from Birth to Twelve and Smith, P. K. (1982) ‘Does play matter? Functional and
Beyond: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings. New evolutionary aspects of animal and human play’,
York: Garland. pp. 109–118. Behavioral and Brain Science, 8: 139–184.
Moustakas, C. (1974) Children in Play Therapy. Oxford: Spencer, H. (1873) Principles of Psychology. New York:
Ballantine Books. D. Appleton.
Neumann, E. A. (1971) The Elements of Play. New York: Suomi, S. J. and Harlow, H. F. (1972) ‘Social rehabilitation
Blackwell. of isolate-reared monkeys’, Developmental
O’Connor, K. J. and Braveman, L. D. (2009) Play Psychology, 6(3): 487–496.
Therapy Theory and Practice. (2nd ed.) Hoboken, NJ: Suomi, S. J. and Harlow, H. F. (1976) ‘Monkeys without
John Wiley & Sons. play’, in J. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (eds), Play – Its
Opie, I. and Opie, P. (1969) Children’s Play in Streets Role in Development and Evolution. New York: Basic
and Playgrounds. London: Clarendon Press. Books. pp. 490–495.
Parten, M. (1932) ‘Social participation among pre- Sutton-Smith, B. (2001) The Ambiguity of Play.
school children’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Psychology, 28: 136–147. Sutton-Smith, B. and Rosenberg, B. G. (1961) ‘Sixty
Pellis, S. M. and Iwaniuk, A. N. (2004) ‘Evolving a playful years of historical change in the game preferences of
brain: A levels of control approach’, International American children’, in R. E. Herron and B. Sutton-
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17: 92–118. Smith (eds), Child’s Play. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Pelligrini, A. D. (2002) ‘The development and possible Thelen, E. and Smith, L. B. (1994) A Dynamic Systems
functions of rough-and-tumble play’, in C. H. Hart and Approach to the Development of Cognition and
P. K. Smith (eds), Handbook of Social Development. Action. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Oxford: Blackwell pp. 438–454. Vanderven, K. (1998) ‘Play, proteus, and paradox:
Pellegrini, A. D. (2009) The Role of Play in Human Education for a chaotic and supersymmetric world’,
Development. New York: Oxford University Press. in D. P. Fromberg and D. Bergen (eds), Play from
Pestalozzi, J. H. (1894) How Gertrude Teaches Her Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Contexts, Perspectives,
Children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. and Meanings. New York: Garland. pp. 119–132.
Piaget, J. (1945) Play, Dreams and Imitation in Van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1968/1976) ‘Mother
Childhood. London: Heinemann. chimpanzees play with their infants’, in J. Bruner, A.
Piaget, J. (1965) The Moral Judgement of the Child. Jolly and K. Sylva (eds), Play: Its Role in Development
New York: Norton. and Evolution. New York: Basic Books. pp. 262–267.
Roopnarine, J. I. and Krishnakumar, A. (2006) ‘Parent- Van Geert, P (2000) ‘The dynamics of general
child and child–child play in diverse cultural contexts’, developmental mechanisms: From Piaget and

Vygotsky to dynamic systems models’, Current J. Valsiner (eds), The Vygotsky Reader. Cambridge,
Directions in Psychological Science, 9: 64–88. MA: Blackwell. pp. 99–174.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967) ‘Play and its role in the mental Whiting, B. and Pope Edwards, C. (1988) Children of
development of the child’, Soviet Psychology, 5: Different Worlds: The Formation of Social Behavior.
6–18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development Wilson, K. and Ryan, V. (2005) Play Therapy: A Non-
of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Directive Approach for Children and Adolescents.
Harvard University Press. Edinburgh: Elsevier.
Vygotsky, L. S. and Luria, A. R. (1994) ‘Tool and symbol Winnicott, D. W. (1953) ‘Psychosis and child care’,
in child development’, in R. van der Veer and British Journal of Medical Psychology, 26(1): 68–74.

Foundations of Play Theory: Doris Bergen

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Foundations of Play Theory: Doris Bergen

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Foundations of Play Theory

INTRODUCTION manifestation of play, such as animal physical

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 9 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

RENAISSANCE/ENLIGHTENMENT LATE NINETEENTH-AND EARLY

Specifically stated theoretical positions Although these earlier theories continued to

translated into 40 languages. (1875), Lazarus (1883) and Seashore (1913)

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 10 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

play was an essential part of their early devel-

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 11 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 12 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 13 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

Ideas of play as a phenomenon fostering (1953) extended the psychoanalytic play

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 14 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 15 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 16 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

evidence, although they have been refined CONCLUSION

moral development’, American Journal of Play, 4(1):

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 17 5/20/2014 6:29:03 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 18 5/20/2014 6:29:04 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 19 5/20/2014 6:29:04 PM

02_Brooker et al_BAB1403B0034_Ch-01 Part I.indd 20 5/20/2014 6:29:04 PM

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi