1

RUNNING HEAD: DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Professional Development Aimed at Supporting Developmentally Appropriate Play Behavior in

Early Childhood Programs

By: Garnett Booker

Table of Content
 2
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

s
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................3
Defining the Field of Play Research.................................................................................................4
Animal play research.......................................................................................................................5
Play research in child development.................................................................................................6
Different Types of Play.....................................................................................................................7
Rough and Tumble Play...................................................................................................................9
The Study of Rough and Tumble Play............................................................................................11
Gibson’s Theory of Affordances....................................................................................................13
Rough and Tumble Play Connections to Emotional and Social Development..............................14
Aggression......................................................................................................................................16
Rough and tumble with parents....................................................................................................16
The Role of Rough and Tumble Play in the Early Childhood Setting.............................................19
Proposed Training Series on Rough and Tumble Play for ECE professionals................................22
Training Series Structure...............................................................................................................23
Training session outline delivery outlines.....................................................................................26
References.....................................................................................................................................27
Appendix A.....................................................................................................................................33
Appendix B.....................................................................................................................................34
 3
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Introduction

Play is one of the oldest forms of human behavior and it is most prevalent during the

early stages of development (Sutton-Smith, 1997). For children, play is the result of intrinsic

motivation, positive influence and free choice. The structure of play behavior is influenced by

developmental milestones and contextual influences. The play experience presents children

with the opportunity to identify and respond to behavior within a social context, express

thoughts to others, and to see how other children’s responses through facial expressions and

words. Play theorist Brian Sutton-Smith (1997) states, “The contents of the social world that

surrounds a child, its moral norms, and rules, are reflected in play.”

Plato wrote “Let children’s lesson take the form of play” (Cornford, 1951). Early studies

indicate growth patterns in cognitive abilities, social emotional skills, language and physical

skills are demonstrated through play (Piaget, 1951 & Vygotsky, 1978). Early childhood

programs are a primary source for developmentally appropriate play experiences. In the U.S.,

from the ages of three to five years, children spend an average of 30 hours a week in child care

programs (NICHD, 2001). During this time children spend a significant amount of time playing

(Christie & Wardle, 1992). Currently there is a need to examine play’s position in relation to

developmentally appropriate behaviors (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005).

While early childhood professionals may be aware of some of the benefits of play, many

do not understand the many foundational ways that play enhances development. And while

there are several kinds of activity areas created in early childhood programs such as block,
 4
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

dramatic play and object/manipulative play, children in early childhood programs display other

developmental appropriate play behaviors as well, such as rough and tumble play. Examining

the development of play from infancy to preschool and the benefits that play affords is

important knowledge for early childhood professionals (Vu, Han, & Buell, 2015). As part of

developing an understanding of play it is important for early childhood professionals to have an

understanding of their own ideas and theories of play. The inclusion of coursework on play in

childhood programs can have an impact on professionals’ stance on play (Bodrova & Leong,

2003). Exploring personal histories of play can help teachers develop new understandings on

developmental play behaviors commonly display in early childhood programs.

This paper presents the theoretical background and describes the structure of a training

series designed for early care and education professional development. The training series is a

6-hour two-part (three hours each) professional development designed to describe the

developmental benefits of play in general and rough and tumble play in particular.

Defining the Field of Play Research

Throughout history, many prominent theorists have conveyed the importance of play in

the overall development of children (Johnson, Christie & Wardle, 2005). Play is displayed in

many forms and no one definition is sufficient. Play can be examined from an individual or

cultural perspective. Many theorists from various fields have agreed that play consists of

behaviors that are self -motivated, controlled, goal related, and requires active engagement

(Krasnor & Pepler, 1980). Before the turn of the 19th century evolutionary biologist and

psychologists have presented functional definitions of play (Ellis, 1973). Spencer, a nineteenth
 5
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

century philosopher makes reference to surplus energy when describing play, while Groos

stated play is the practicing of the instincts (Ellis, 1973). Modern theorists’ supported the idea

of early play behavior developing into socially valuable skills needed throughout development

(Dewy, 1909). Maria Montessori believed that play provides children the opportunity to

encounter reality without the imposed thoughts of others (Krasnor &Pepler, 1980). Some play

theorists have used an understanding of animal behavior as a means of comparison to the

development of human play behaviors (Fagen, 1981).

Animal play research

The differences between human and animal behavior highlights the ambiguity of play. A

nonhuman perspective provides insight on the species-specific sensory and cognitive

capabilities present during animal play (Fagen, 1981). Previous literature has illustrated a

variety of anecdotal descriptions on animal play within their natural environment (Fagen, 1981,

Groos, 1901, & Burghardt, 2005). In the lab, laboratory rats and monkeys have been the two

most extensively studied mammals related to play (Burghardt, 2005). The development of

social play in monkeys resembles the typical inverted U curve seen in other species in which

social play rapidly increases and peaks at 6 months, then declines as the monkey approaches

maturity (Biben & Suomi, 1993). Research on rat play behavior highlights the physiological

aspect of play. For example Pellis and Pellis (2009) highlight the relationship between rat play

behavior and physiological changes in their brain. The study of animal play offers insight on

developmental play behaviors amongst mammals.

Play research in child development

 6
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Cognitive. The study of children’s play behavior linked to cognitive development has been of

interests throughout history (Johnson, Christie & Wardle, 2005). Children’s play behaviors are

commonly categorized and arranged on an ordinal scale that equates to developmental

functions (Johnson, Christie& Wardle, 2005). Piaget’s (1951) emphasis on the role of play in

children’s cognitive development and how it functions as the mode for practicing new skills is

also important concept. According to Piaget the early stages of development children spend a

majority of their time focusing on making connections between actions and play objects (1951).

As children grow and develop they are able to form mental representations during play

(Johnson, Christie & Wardle, 2005).

Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) theoretical stance on play highlighted the developmental process

also. For example play provides children the opportunity to expand their behavioral repertoire

thus expanding and fostering their development. Vygotsky’s work also recognizes the notion of

learning new skills with assistance from others and objects. For example, Vygotsky’s zone of

proximal development highlights the difference between what the child can do without help

and what children can do with help (Vygotsky, 1978).

Social. All play has a social context, however as it becomes more complex, certain social

behaviors become more defined, such as turn taking, maintaining, or ending social interactions

(Johnson, Christie& Wardle, 2005). Social play involves communication and cooperation among

two or more participants. Play with objects is also a major contributor to the development of

social play during the early stages of development (Mueller & Lucas, 1975). The objects

facilitate the play interaction among the participants and provide children the opportunity to
 7
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

improve social play skills (Jacobson, 1981). For example block play can sometimes involve

children taking turns to create a structure. Parten’s theory of play (1932) illustrates the

development of social play behavior in childcare. The four stages of social play in Parten’s play

theory (1932):

1. Solitary Play- The child plays alone and independently with objects and makes no
effort to include others.
2. Parallel Play- Child play is still independent and the material creates a shared space.
The child plays with objects that are similar to other children, but participants
establish personal organization of the play experience. The play experience becomes
next to others children versus playing together.
3. Associative Play- Children communicate with other children during the play
experience. The notion of borrowing and loaning of the play materials takes place
within a group of children. The play experience is subjectively organized.
4. Cooperative Play- Children collectively use the materials during play experiences
that includes defined roles and a shared purpose.

Different Types of Play

Play behaviors are also developmentally expressed through categories such as physical

play, play with objects, symbolic play, socio-dramatic play and games with rules (Johnson,

Christie & Wardle, 2005). It is important for early childhood professionals to understand the

many different types of play behaviors and how the development of each type can support

children’s development.

Physical Play. Physical play is characterized by the use of small and large muscles during a

play experience (Power, 2000). During physical play children use their bodies to explore

another person’s body, or objects in the environment (Johnson, Christie& Wardle, 2005).

Research recognizes physical play as one of the earliest to evolve (Power, 2000). Infants spend

a majority of their time engaged in tugging at their feet, kicking, and rolling side to side

(Crawley &Sherrod 1984). In most cases this type of play behavior is solitary. They also may
 8
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

grab and squeeze the body parts of other children when placed in social settings such as child

care. According to Piaget (1951) the sensorimotor stage provides opportunities for infants to

acquire knowledge through the manipulation of objects and with limited movement children

begin to use their bodies as objects.

Object play. Object play behavior is common in early childhood programs and children play with

objects in similar ways. As children develop, their manipulation of objects also becomes refined

during play interactions. For instance, infants begin to explore objects through mouthing,

grabbing, hitting and dropping. Soon toddlers are able to classify objects, leading to sorting

activities. By the age of four, children begin to use objects to build and construct. Pellegrini and

Gustafson (2005) suggests that the amount of time children spend building and constructing

can predicate their subsequent performance on physical problem solving tasks. Objects direct

the play behavior of young children and as children develop play with objects becomes more

organized (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005).

Symbolic Play. Symbolic play occurs when children begin to substitute objects for others

things. This type of play requires the “ability to use words, gestures or mental images to

represent actual, events or actions” (Isenberg & Jacobs, 1983, p.272). By the age of two

typically developing children are able to engage in pretend actions and role enactments (Fein,

1981). As children engage in symbolic play they learn social rules including negotiation and

taking turns (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). The dramatic play area in early childhood

education programs is a common area for symbolic play behaviors. Even with very young
 9
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

children, in dramatic play we see pretend behaviors such a feeding a baby doll, food shopping,

and other social activities.

Games with Rules. Piaget’s studies on child development incorporate a sequential view of play

development in which symbolic play is a precursor to the development of games with rules

(Piaget, 1951). Spontaneous games with rules involve negotiation between children in order to

create and maintain the play. The maintenance of the game is determined by the cognitive

reasoning and social rules from the children playing the game (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle,

2005). Children begin to identify and acknowledge social identities in the games with rules they

play. For example during board games, card games, hand/foot and ball type games children

come to a shared understanding of the rules.

Rough and Tumble Play

Rough and tumble play can be considered a special form of play. This style of play was

first academically identified as such in the book “Play of Man” (1901) written by anthropologist

Karl Groos. Early descriptions have described children engaged in rough and tumble play with

purposeful moments that are not intended to cause harm to another player . Children and youth

engage in rough and tumble play with parents and peers (Flanders et al., 2010). Sutton-Smith

(1997) considered rough and tumble play as one of the earliest behaviors of play to develop.

The basic behaviors associated with rough and tumble play include running, chasing and

fleeing, wrestling, open handed slapping, falling and play fighting (Blurton- Jones 1967). In

rough and tumble play fighting bouts participants will display a play face, a primary

characteristic of play behaviors (Humphreys & Smith, 1984). The play face is described as an
 10
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

opened-mouth, teeth-bared expression, which may look fierce but essentially symbolizes a non-

aggressive and playful purpose (Harlow, 1962). Facial expressions are created through the use

of cranial nerves and can be linked to cognitive development (Lewis & Michalson, 1983).

Participants engaged in rough and tumble play usually display the same play face expressions

along with laughter to communicate that their behavior is in play and not meant to be

aggressive. It is also important for participants and observers of rough and tumble play to be

aware of the display of an angry or scared facial expression. An angry face is characterized by

lowered drawn eyebrows and at times accompanied with crying1. A scared expression includes

straightening the brows in a raised position, widening the eyes and horizontally retracting the

lips (Ekom & Oster, 1979).

In order to interpret rough and tumble play, one must distinguish between the text and

context in play. The text is the distinct play expressions and the context refers to the message

that is given by a specific situation (Sutton-Smith, 1997). Thus an observation of rough and

tumble play sequence will only provide the text, not the context. For instance, physical

interactions such as wrestling and shoving maybe observed, but a feeling of caring and

embracement is actually occurring (Pellegrini, 1987). Children also express their play intentions

through the use of language. The common phrase used by children to explain this play

experience is “We are just playing”, (Jarvis, 2009). The context of play also examines the

agreed upon standards of social behaviors (Sutton-Smith, 1997).

The Study of Rough and Tumble Play

1
Crying is the preeminent expression of all negative affect throughout early childhood.
(Sullivan & Lewis, 2003)
 11
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Non-human animal studies. Rough and tumble play was originally studied by social and

behavioral scientists who examined the social play of animals (Harlow, 1962). Harlow (1962)

identified five stages of developmental play behaviors among laboratory rhesus monkeys. The

first stage is pre-social play in which the infants explore and manipulate objects within sight and

can include other infants in the object play. The second stage is regarded as rough and tumble

play and involves the infants engaging in wrestling activities. The third stage labeled approach-

withdrawal play is portrayed by pairs of monkeys chasing after one another and does not have

to include physical contact. The fourth stage combines rough and tumble and approach-

withdrawal. Aggressive play is the fifth stage and develops at the end of the first year. This

type of play involves biting and pulling, however it rarely resulted in injury.

Rough and tumble play is a common behavior among many mammalian species

(Pellegrini, 1987). For example male chimpanzees engage in rough and tumble play to establish

status within the group without causing injury (Pacquette, 1994). Rats often partake in play

fighting bouts in which a pair of rats competes for access to the partner’s nape and when there

is contact the rat will gently rub its snout onto the other rat’s nape area (Pellis &Pellis, 2009).

This is believed to help rats develop defense tactics in a playful manner. The most common

defense tactic involves the rat rolling flat on its back, and this commonly leads to a pinning

configuration (Pellis & Pellis, 2009).

Rough and tumble play in humans. The first modern ethological study of human play

was conducted by Blurton- Jones (1967). He transferred the same characteristics and strategies

of rough and tumble play described by Harlow and applied them to young boys and girls
 12
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

(Blurton-Jones, 1967). He reported a pattern of running, chasing, and play fighting among his

participants, similar to juvenile primates. The literature suggests that rough and tumble play is a

specialized form of physical play behaviors that children and youth engage in with parents or

peers (Flanders et al., 2010). Currently, rough and tumble play includes mock wrestling,

running, chasing/fleeing, piling on, pushing, open hand hitting, and pouncing, as well as loud

noises (Tannock, 2011). Fry (1987) found that structured rough and tumble play took place

among children in Mexico, Kenya, Japan, India and the USA.

Most of the literature on children and rough and tumble play highlights gender and age

differences (DiPietro, 1981, Pellegrini & Smith, 1998, Reed & Brown, 2000, & Tannock, 2011).

There has been thorough documentation using similar methodology describing the frequency

of rough and tumble play among children; it portrays an inverted U development curve. For

preschool children, rough and tumble play accounts for 3%-5% of play behavior (Pellegrini,

1987); at 6 to 10 years, it takes up 7%-8% of recess behavior, and during the 7 through 11 year

old period it accounts for 10 % (Humphreys & Smith, 1984). However, the frequency in which

rough and tumble play occurs across the early school years appears be substantially less than

the occurrence of constructive play, but similar to the occurrence of functional and pretend

play (Fein, 1981). As children grow older, their time spent engaged in rough and tumble play

decreases (Pellegrini &Smith, 1998).

Most studies of children’s playground behavior reveal differences in play styles among

boys and girls (Fabes, 1994, Monighan-Nourot, 1997). Males surpass females in frequency of

rough and tumble play in all cultures examined (DiPietro, 1981). A review of the literature also
 13
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

reveals the boys display higher rates of initiation of rough and tumble bouts and females show

higher withdrawal rates from rough and tumble bouts (Fabes, 1994). Evidence shows that girls

are just as physically active as boys until the age of four or five (Monighan-Nourot, 1997). The

physical vigor and roughness often displayed in boys’ play groups are important factors for girls

separating themselves from boy play groups (Fabes, 1994). Boys are also more likely to engage

in physical activity as an expression of friendship, which does not fit the traditional

characteristic of caring relationships (Reed & Brown, 2011). Girls tend to be engaged in a

different type of rough and tumble play than boys (Tannock, 2011). The research shows that

girls were involved in rough and tumble play that was less intrusive to other players (DiPietro,

1981). For example there was no observed grabbing and moving the body of other players or

wrestling.

Gibson’s Theory of Affordances

The relationship between humans and the environment can be viewed as a complex

interaction between psychological factors and the distinctive environment of a human (Gibson,

1979). When children play outdoors they are progressively developing a personal relationship

with the environment. Gibson’s (1979) theory of affordances highlights an individual’s

perception of their surrounding environment. The affordances of an environment are the

functionally significant properties in correlation to the individual and are based in practical

activity (Gibson, 1979). Affordances in rough and tumble play can include the physical or social

features of the environment, which are somewhat inseparable. Children’s perception of the

environment unifies the social and physical aspects of the environment (Clark & Uzzell, 2006).
 14
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Gibson’s theory of affordances also identified a role for learning and development in

perception, which places an emphasis on learning about the environment from other people

(Clark & Uzzell, 2006). According to the theory, children’s ability to recognize play signals and

act upon them is a prime example of how children develop skills through social play. Tannock

(2011) mentions the importance of this experience through play and how it relates to children’s

cognitive development. Cognitive knowledge of social schemes through rough and tumble play

assist in developing an understanding of social rules and logical thinking (Pellegrini, 1987).

Some children are not capable of realizing the differences between play fighting and real

fighting. This inability can contribute to social risk. When these children are placed in a

situation in which another child initiates play fighting, they typically respond aggressively

(Dodge & Frame, 1982).

Rough and Tumble Play Connections to Emotional and Social Development.

Research has linked the amount of time spent in rough and tumble play episodes, to

preschool children’s ability in positively decode emotional expressions, such as happy, sad,

angry, and scared (Pellegrini, 1987). For example rough and tumble play can provide children

with the experiences that allow them to express their emotions, understand the emotions of

other children, and regulate their emotions (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Social and emotional

development are interrelated; children’s social interactions can be emotionally motivated

(Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001). A good example of this is the ability to encode and

decode social signals in order to distinguish whether physical contact during a rough and

tumble play episode is play or aggression. During rough and tumble bouts children often are

exhibiting companionship, nurturance and cooperation (Reed & Brown, 2000). Rough and
 15
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

tumble play bouts can be used to examine social behaviors within the early childhood

environment. Typically adults who observe rough and tumble play focus on the behavior

without focusing on the context in which it transpired (DiPietro, 1981).

A typical rough and tumble play bout includes negotiating what and how the participants

are playing and how it will continue (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). It is essential that children

communicate in rough and tumble play, whether directly through the use of language or

through more indirect play signals, including facial expressions. Gregory Bateson (1972) stated

that rough and tumble play helps children develop symbolic thinking and meta-communication,

which is communication about how the interaction is to proceed. Anderson (2005) states that

meta-communication

 Lays out the boundaries between play and reality.

 It transfers meanings of things, persons, and actions.

 It enables children to plan the next steps of the plot by leaving the play and then

speaking about what to do next.

The players involved in the play experience are gaining a sense of personal limits and witness

the impact of their behavior on others. A child’s response to play behaviors has a direct impact

on the play episode with other children. For example how are respond to the initial gesture of a

play request. Children’s play behavior change over both short and long periods of time. The

flow of play changes in minutes and how children play changes with maturation (Johnson,

Christie & Wardle, 2005).

Aggression
 16
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

There has been concern over questions of rough and tumble play stimulating aggressive

behavior in young children (Smith, 1994). In some cases, rough and tumble play has been

mistaken for aggression because when observed, both behaviors externally look similar.

Understanding the difference between rough and tumble play and aggression is an important

aspect of examining play behavior. “The prevalence of physical aggression is greatest around

the age of two, but subsequently declines rapidly until the school age, and then more regularly

until adolescence” (Pellegrini, 1987). Early childhood programs are designed to help children

refrain from aggressive behaviors. Aggressive behavior and rejected socio-metric status are

reliable predicators of children being at risk for future social struggles (Rutter & Garmezy,

1983). The literature affirms that rough and tumble play aids positive social function in children

while aggression has adverse effects on children’s pro-social development (Flanders et al.

2010).

Rough and tumble with parents

Unlike animals who play with peers from very early in life, young children primarily play

with their parents (Panksepp, 1998). Most of the research reviewed portrays fathers as having

more involvement in physical play than mothers (Fletcher, St. George, & Freeman, 2012). The

earliest rough and tumble play experiences take place between the child and a parent (Carson,

Burks & Parke, 1993). By the age of 4, rough and tumble play accounted for 8% of observed

parent and child behavior (Jacklin, DiPietro, & Maccoby, 1984). Fathers tend to energize

children through physical interaction more than mothers. “Infants respond to fathers with

more excitement when the fathers develop a heightened, stimulating, and physical playful

relationship (Yogman, 1994). As children begin to grow older the physical play between father
 17
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

and child becomes more frequent. The frequency of father-child rough and tumble play peaks

in late preschool years, whereas the frequency of peer rough and tumble play peaks in early

adolescence (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998).

During rough and tumble play fathers can positively promote these skills without

overstepping boundaries which could ultimately lead to true aggression by the child (Fletcher,

St. George, & Freeman, 2012). This corresponds to the nature and quality of father/child rough

and tumble play. The research suggests that parent/child rough and tumble play experiences in

which the father is observant and playful, communicates the fun in competition between the

two of them (Fletcher, St. George, & Freeman, 2012). The father must also be aware of the

child’s abilities and interests, which can promote engagement. The key component of quality

father/child rough and play bouts is for the father to maintain a balance between challenging

the child and letting the child win (Flanders et al., 2010). The quality of this type of interaction

illustrates a common play practice between parent and child in which the child trusts the father

to help manage aggression and the enjoyment in succeeding to win. Fletcher, St.George, and

Freeman (2012) proposed “that the nature of parent-child rough and tumble play experience

align conceptually with a number of fundamental constructs that characterize parent-child

interactions such as parenting warmth, sensitivity and control.” Warmth, sensitivity, and

control are aspects of parenting styles that correlate to children’s positive socio-emotional and

cognitive development (Roggman, 2004, p.229). Warmth in rough and tumble play has been

measured by the quality of laughter observed in the interaction (MacDonald, 1987).

 18
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Parenting styles can have presumed effect on children’s development. “Parenting

control is conceived of as firm form of discipline, where a parent sets developmentally

appropriate limits and expectations for the child’s behavior” (Baumrind, 1966). Some

observational studies of rough and tumble play have made the attempt to code fathers’ level of

control in play (Fletcher, St. George, & Freeman, 2012 & Flanders et al., 2010). In connection

with the evolutionary perspective control is looked at in terms of dominance. Dominance can

be classified as a characteristic of human social behavior (Hawley, 1999). It is clear the father,

who can dominate the child physically has the ability win or lose during a rough and tumble

play bout. And part of the amusement in rough and tumble play is winning and losing. Winning

is important because for developing children, the chance of achieving mastery over a foe

superior in age, strength and status while being loved, is an exhilarating experience (Flanders et

al., 2009).

Children use rough and tumble play to negotiate dominance among themselves

(Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). For example rough and tumble play consists of one child with the

upper hand, which may include holding down a player. This type of physical ability correlates to

a child’s social standing among peers at school (Pellegrini, 1995). The role of the father when

challenging their child is to scaffold their experience and should be kept at an ideal range.

There is also risk taking in the father-child rough and tumble play experience. Children tend to

seek risk in their play activities, which can embrace excitement and fear. Some parents’ and

educators’ tend to be unsure on how to interpret risk taking in children’s play. “Risk taking

when carefully managed and scaffolded can develop confidence, self-esteem, and resilience”

(Play Safety Forum, 2002).

 19
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

The Role of Rough and Tumble Play in the Early Childhood Setting

Rough and tumble play is largely discouraged in the early care and education setting

(Holland, 2003). Some of the absence of this sort of play can be explained by the demographics

of the field. Well over 90% of the early care and education workforce is female (http://nieer

.org). As noted above women have a different inclination towards rough and tumble paly than

do men. But added to this is a concern regarding safety. “Zero tolerance of rough and tumble

play was historically supported based on the belief of a connection between children’s early

involvement in aggressive play themes and the development of aggressive behaviors” (Holland,

2003). Holland (2003) suggests that a zero tolerance approach inhibits children from developing

and practicing imaginative and negotiating skills.

The work of Sutton-Smith (1997) discussed above highlights the importance of

contextual shifts in understanding in children’s play. Teachers must be willing to suspend their

personal views of rough and tumble play to see the true value in this type of play. Excluding

rough and tumble play can prevent children from developing and practicing imaginative and

negotiating skills (Holland, 2003). The first NAEYC handbook on developmentally practice

openly opposed rough and tumble play (Bredekamp, 1986). However the updated version of

the handbook states, “Peers become important agents of socialization and provide important

learning opportunities as well as the rough and tumble playful and inventive forms of

interaction that young children enjoy at these ages” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

The normative preschool environment today leaves less room for rough and tumble

play. The nature of pre-K programs is becoming increasingly academic, despite the strong
 20
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

research base that supports play (Jones, 2003). Teachers also spend long hours with children

and find the need to construct play experiences that are more suitable to control. This type of

play tends to involve desktop activities, which has the perception of a well behaved classroom.

However, Beverly Fagot’s play study (1985) suggested that although preschool teachers

emphasized less active play behaviors over rough and tumble play, it did not prevent the boys

from engaging in it. The lack of motor stimulation can become a real problem, especially for

boys. They are required to spend a large part of their day in a physically confined setting and

are in need of releasing their energy. Smith and Hagen (1980) indicated that the longer children

were kept in their classrooms the more intense and sustained was their vigorous recess play.

There seems to be variations in how much early care and education settings permitted,

accepted, or banned rough and tumble play (Humphery & Smith, 1984). Rough and tumble

play seems to bring conflict to the theoretical questions of what environment best supports

positive development and what role teachers and parents should assume in this

developmentally appropriate environment. Alice Miller (1983) suggests a school setting that

forbids supervised rough and tumble play has the capability of harming children. She believes

that when children are denied the chance to engage in rough and tumble play, they are also

being denied a socially acceptable ways to understand trust and the concept of friendship

(Miller, 1983).

There is limited research on how teachers’ perceptions of rough and tumble play affect

their instructional and guidance towards play behaviors (Logue, Robie, Brown, & Wait, 2009).

The need to fully understand how to recognize and interpret rough and tumble play behaviors
 21
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

is an important developmental topic for early childhood professionals. For instance NAEYC’s

program standard highlights the physical space needed for physical play behaviors

(www.NAEYC.org). Supervision standards can also have an effect on the child’s emotional

wellbeing. Adequate supervision requires a response from staff in order to exclude specific

behaviors that might pose a risk. True rough and tumble play involves smiling participants, and

staff must be close enough to detect smiles. Being aware of such traits help early childhood

professionals respond in a manner that best supports the development of young children.

However because supervision is sometimes a challenge, rough and tumble play runs the risk of

being shut down regardless of child expressions.

While there are many developmental benefits associated with rough and tumble play

early childhood field professionals commonly promote the idea of playing “nice”, which leaves

no room for rough and tumble play behaviors. The idea of nice is a social construct that

consists of a shared meaning amongst participants and requires practice (Burk, 1996). Rough

and tumble play bouts have been described as a reciprocal relationship between children that is

influenced by the level of friendship (Smith & Lewis, 1985). Early childhood professionals’

response of “It is not nice to hit your friend” tends to omit the idea of how children perceive

friendship. Children are capable of distinguishing play behaviors and early childhood

professionals would best serve rough and tumble play by understanding it as way to express

friendship.

Proposed Training Series on Rough and Tumble Play for ECE professionals
 22
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

The teachers and staff in early care and education programs represent a wide variety of

educational backgrounds and trainings. Subsequently it is important to provide early childhood

professionals education and training opportunities that teach foundational content and that

support re -examining teaching practices. Thus training that offers teachers new ways to

consider the importance of rough and tumble play and to consider ways to support rough and

tumble play is necessary to support continued quality improvement in early care and education

settings.

But in order to provide increased knowledge skills and abilities, the methods of the

professional development training experience must be considered. Professional development

and trainings are intended to provide transformational learning opportunities. Adult learning

theory makes reference to learning styles and cognitive style during the learning experience

(Cranston, 2006). As social creatures, we commonly acquire knowledge through interactions

with others. The proposed training will provide a space for participants to interact with others.

Likewise, creating an environment that supports reflective dialogue is needed to help early

childhood professionals re-examine appropriate practices as it relates to responding to

children’s behavior. The proposed training series is intended to help early childhood

professionals establish an understanding and fluidity in responses to children’s play behaviors.

The subjective nature of play behaviors is an important element to understanding how to

interpret and understand play. This training series will incorporate practical knowledge on the

common developmental play behavior displayed in early childhood programs through reflective

discussions. Participants will be encouraged to describe individual professional experiences and

reactions to play behaviors.

 23
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Training Series Structure

The training series will be divided into two three-hour sessions for a total of 6 hours of

training. Participants will be encouraged to take both trainings to receive maximum benefit.

During the first training, the participants will have the opportunity to develop their own

personal play theory. The play theory will serve as an important reflection tool throughout both

professional development sessions. Personal views on children’s play behavior can have a direct

effect on the kinds of play opportunities that take place in an early childhood programs. Both

professional development sessions are intended to give early childhood education professionals

the opportunity to recognize and reflect upon personal views on developmental play behaviors

commonly displayed in early childhood education programs.

Session One. The first professional development session (See appendix A) will describe

developmental play behaviors commonly displayed in early childhood education programs. The

overall objectives of this training are designed to increase early childhood professionals

understanding on how children grow and develop through play. Modern theories suggest play

behaviors illustrate the milestones children conquer during development. The theoretically

based examples of children’s play behaviors will allow participants to see grounded contextual

influences for why children play. Throughout the training the participants will constantly have

the opportunity to interpret common play behaviors displayed in early childhood education

programs. It is important to discuss the subjective interpretations of common play behaviors in

order to address ways to support children’s development. The overall objective of the

professional development will be to provide participants the opportunity to reflect on their

personal theory on play.

 24
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Session Two. The second professional development session will focus on rough and

tumble play. Rough and tumble play is one type of play behavior that evokes negative

responses from early childhood education professionals. However, many early childhood

education professionals are not familiar with the positive benefits of rough and tumble play.

Because this style of a play is not widely promoted or understood the training session will

introduce the positive aspects of rough and tumble play. During this session early childhood

professionals will have the opportunity to re-evaluate their personal play perspective developed

in the first professional development. The ability to observe and interpret rough and tumble

play behaviors will benefit the developmental needs of children. Recognizing the positive

benefits of rough and tumble play will help shed light on the false perception of “playing nice”.

Externally rough and tumble play looks like aggression and in most cases early childhood

professional will take steps to stop or re-direct most boisterous play behaviors. The professional

development will ultimately provide participants the opportunity to define how they can

support rough and tumble play behavior in a high reward low risk way.

The combination of both training sessions will provide early childhood education

professions the opportunity to analyze their personal play perspectives in comparison to

common developmental play behaviors. The combined training sessions will ultimately

challenge current views on play, and promote more child centered programming.
 25
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Training session delivery outlines

Session One Training Title: Developmentally Appropriate Play Behaviors

Duration: 3 hours
Introduction Introduce topic
Identify Learning Objectives
Idea One. What is play? Why Children’s views on play
do children play? Constructing personal play theories
Idea Two. Developmental Cognitive Piaget Practice Play
benefits of play Symbolic Play
Vygotsky Zone of Proximal
Development
 26
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Idea Three. Common Play
Behaviors
Idea Four. Enhancing Social
Development through play
Summary of training
Scaffolding
Activity- Scaffolding put into
practice
The social component of play
Solitary Play
Parallel Play
Associative Play
Cooperative Play
Games with rules
Solitary Play
Social Competence
Developing Social Guidelines
Executive Functioning
Activity
Cognitive Development
Social Development

Session Two Training Title: Rough and Tumble Play: Developmentally appropriate behavior.
Duration: 3 hours
Introduction Introduce topic
Identify Learning Objectives
Idea One. What is Rough and Tumble Video
rough and tumble Rough and Tumble Play defined
play (R&T play)
Personal rough and tumble experiences
Misconceptions about R & play
A common play behavior in both animals and humans
Idea Two. The Infants
development of Toddlers
R&T play Preschool
behaviors Parental Influences
 27
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Aggression versus R&T play

Idea Three. Social emotional Facial Expressions
Supporting R&T cues Decoding and Encoding social signals
play behavior Affective social competence
Analyzing risks
Guidelines for R& T play

Summary of Review of R &T play

training

References

Anderson, M. L. (2005). Representation, evolution and embodiment. Institute for Advanced Computer
Studies: University of Maryland.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development.
37(4), 887-907.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: collected essays in anthropology,

psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.

Biben, M. & Suomi, S. (1993). Lessons from primate play. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child
play, 185–96. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Blurton-Jones, N. (1967). An ethological study of some aspects of social behavior of children in nursery
school. In D. Morris (Ed.), Primate Ethology. (pp.347-368). Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London.
 28
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J. (2003). Chopsticks and counting chips. Do play and foundational skills need
to compete for the teachers’ attention in an early childhood classroom? Young Children, 58(3),
10-17.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.) (1986). Developmentally appropriate practice. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Ed.) (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs (Revised edition). Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.

Bronstien, P. (1984). Differences in mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors toward children: A cross-
cultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 20, 995-1003.

Burghardt, G. (2005). The genesis of animal play: Testing the limits. Cambridge. MA. MIT Press.

Burk, D. I. (1996). Understanding friendship and social interaction. Childhood Education Annual,
72(5), 282-285.

Carson, J., Burks, V., & Parke, R. D. (1993). Parent-Child Physical Play: Determinants and
Consequences. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-Child Play: Descriptions & Implications
(pp. 197-220). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Christie, J.F. & Wardle, F. (1992). How much time is needed for play? Young Children, 47 (93), 28-32.

Clark C. & Uzzell D. (2006). The socio-environmental affordances of adolescents’ environments.

In C. Spencer & M. Blades (Ed.), Children and their environments: Learning, using, and
designing spaces (pp. 176-195). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cornford, F. (1951). The republic of Plato. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of
adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crawley, S. B., & Sherrod, K. B. (1984). Parent-Infant play during the first year of life. Infant Behavior
and Development, 7, 65-75.

DiPietro, J. A. (1981). Rough-and-tumble play: A function of gender. Developmental Psychology,

17(1), 50-58.
Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principals in education. New York: Arcturus Books.
Dodge, K. & Frame, C. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child
Development, 53, 620-635.
 29
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Ellis, A. (1973). Humanistic psychotherapy: the rational-emotive approach. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Ekman, P. & Oster, H. (1979). Facial expression of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 527-
554.
Fabes, R. A. (1994). Physiological, emotional, and behavioral correlates of gender segregation. New
Directions Child Development, 65, 19-34.
Fagen, R. (1981). Animal play behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fagot, B. I. (1985). Changes in thinking about early sex role development. Developmental Review, 5,
83-98.
Fein, G. G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative view. Child Development. 52. 1095-1118.
Fletcher, R., St. George, J., & Freeman, E. (2012). Rough-and-tumble play quality: Theoretical
foundations for a new measure of father-child interaction. Early Child Development and Care,
746-759.

Flanders J. L., Leo, V., Paquette, D., Pihl, R. O., & Seguin J. (2010). Rough and tumble play and the
regulation of aggression: An observational study of father-child play dyads. Aggressive
Behavior, 35, 285-295.
Fry, D. (1987). Differences between playfighting and serious fights among Zapotec children.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 285-306
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Groos, K. (1901). The play of man. New York: Appleton.

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social competence. Social
Development, 10, 79–119.

Harlow, H. (1962). The heterosexual affection system in monkeys. American Psychologist, 17, 1-9.

Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective.

Developmental Review, 19, 97-132.

Holland, P. (2003). We don’t play with guns here: War, weapon, and superhero play in early years.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Humphreys, A.P., & Smith, K.P. (1984). Rough and tumble play in preschool and playground. In K.
Smith (Ed.), Play in animals and humans (pp. 241-266). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Isenberg, J. & Jacobs, E. (1983). Literacy and symbolic play: A review of the literature. Childhood
Education, 59(4), 272-276.
Jacobson, J. (1981). The role of inanimate objects in early peer interactions. Child Development,
 30
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

52, 618-626.

Jacklin, C. N., DiPietro, J. A., & Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Sex-typing behavior and sex-typing pressure
in child/parent interaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 413-425.

Jarvis, P. (2009). Building "social hardiness" for life: rough and tumble play in the early years of
primary school. In A. Brock, S. Dodds, P. Jarvis & Y. Olusoga (Eds.), Perspectives on Play.
Learning for Life (pp. 175-193). Harlow: United Kingdom. Pearson Education Limited.
Johnson, J., Christie, J., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development, and early education. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lamb, M. E. (1996). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Lewis, M., & Michalson, L. (1983). Children’s emotions and moods: Developmental theory and
measurement. New York: Plenum.

Logue, M. E., Robie, M., Brown, M., & Waite, K. (2009). Read my dance: Promoting early writing
through dance. Childhood Education, 85(4), 216-222.

MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected and popular boys.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 705-711.
Miller, A. (1983). The drama of the gifted child: The search for the true self. New York: Basic Books.
Monighan-Nourot, P. (1997). Playing with play in four dimensions. In J. P. Isenberg & M. R. Jalong
(Eds.), Major trends and issues in early childhood education: Challenges, controversies and
insight (pp. 123-148). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mueller, E. & Lucas, T. (1975). A development analysis of peer interactions among toddlers. In M.
Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), Friendship and peer relations (pp.223-257). New York: Wiley.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2012). National
     Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved October 25, 2015 from
     http://www.naeyc.org/
NICHD. Early Child Care Research Network. A guide for evaluating childcare quality. Zero-Three, 21,
40-47.
Pankseep, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Pacquette, D. (1994). Fighting and play fighting in captive adolescent chimpanzees. Aggressive
Behaviour, 20, 49-65.

Parten, M. (1933). Social Play among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
28, 136-147.
 31
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.

Play Safety Forum. (2002). Managing risk in play provision: A position statement. Play Safety Forum.
Retrieved (November 3, 2015) from http://www.childfriendlycities.org/pdf/playprovison.pdf

Pellegrini, A. D. (1987). Rough-and-tumble play: Developmental and educational significance.

Educational Psychologist, 22, 23-43.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). School Recess and playground behavior: Educational and developmental
roles. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Gustafson, K. (2005). Boys’ and girls’ uses of objects for exploration, play and tools
in early childhood. In A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The nature of play: Great apes and
humans (pp. 113-135). New York: Guilford Press.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Perlmutter, J. (1988). Rough and tumble play on the elementary school playground.
Young Children, 42 (2), 14-17.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected
aspect of play. Child Development, 69, 557-598.
Pellis, S., & Pellis, V. (2009). The Playful Brain: Venturing to the limits of neuroscience. Oxford, UK:
One World Publications.

Power, T. G. (2000). Play and exploration in children and animals. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reed, T., & Brown, M. (2000). The expression of care in the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), 104-116.

Roggman, L. A. (2004). Do fathers just want to have fun? Human Development, 47(4), 228-236.

Rutter, M., & Garmezy, N. (1983). Developmental psychopathology. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),

Mussen’s handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th
ed. pp.775–911). New York: Wiley.

Smith, P. K, (1994). The war play debate. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.) Toys, Play, and
Child Development (pp. 67-84). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Smith, P. K., & Hagan, T. (1980). Effects of deprivation on excessive play in nursery school children.
Animal Behavior, 28, 922-928.

Smith, P. K, & Lewis, K. (1985). Rough and tumble play, fighting, and chasing in nursery school
children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, (3), 175-181.

Sullivan, W. S., & Lewis, M. (2003). Emotional expressions of young infants and children: A
Practitioner’s primer. Infants and Young Children, 16(2), 120-142.
 32
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tannock, M.T. (2011). Observing young children’s rough and tumble play. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 36 (2), 13-20.

The National Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER), 2016. Research on the shortage of male
teachers [Data file]. Retrieved December 28, 2016 from http://nieer.org/.

Vu, J. A., Han, M., & Buell, M. J. (2015). The effects of in-service training on teachers’ beliefs and
practices in children’s play. European Early Childhood Education Journal, 23 (4), 444-460.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yogman, M., W. (1994). Observations on the father-infant relationship. In S. H. Cath, A.R. Gurwitt, &
J.M. Ross (Eds.). Father and Child: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives (pp. 101-122).
New York, NY: Psychology Press: 101-122.
 33
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Appendix A

Professional Development Power Point on developmental play

behaviors in ECE programs
 34
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS

Appendix B

Professional Development Power Point on Rough and Tumble play

 35
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRAITE PLAY BEHAVIORS