Early Years

An International Research Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20

Identifying play skills that predict children’s

language in the beginning of the first year of
school

Karen Stagnitti, Louise Paatsch, Andrea Nolan & Kate Campbell

To cite this article: Karen Stagnitti, Louise Paatsch, Andrea Nolan & Kate Campbell (2023)
Identifying play skills that predict children’s language in the beginning of the first year of
school, Early Years, 43:2, 213-227, DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2020.1865280

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1865280

Published online: 29 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1851

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceye20
EARLY YEARS
2023, VOL. 43, NO. 2, 213–227
https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1865280

Identifying play skills that predict children’s language in the

beginning of the first year of school
Karen Stagnittia, Louise Paatsch b
, Andrea Nolan b
and Kate Campbellc
a
School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; bSchool of Education,
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; cSpeech Language Pathologist, Research Assistant, School of
Education, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Strong oral language skills are foundational for literacy develop­ Received 17 December 2019
ment and begin before a child enters formal schooling. Oral lan­ Accepted 14 December 2020
guage development has been related to pretend play abilities in KEYWORDS
children. Children, particularly those from disadvantaged areas, Pretend play; oral language;
who enter school with low pretend play levels and oral language early years classrooms;
abilities, are at risk for learning. This quantitative study investigated children experiencing
the pretend play and oral language abilities of a group of 30 disadvantage
children from a disadvantaged area in Victoria, Australia, in their
first year of school. Standardised play and language assessments
were administered by researchers independent of each other.
Results showed that, as a group, the children were entering school
with play and oral language abilities below expected range for their
age. Object substitution, the ability to symbolise and use an object
as something else, was found to be a predictor of a child’s expres­
sive and receptive language ability. Applying a socio-cultural lens
enabled further exploration of the findings in relation to children’s
lives. Implications for practice that are mindful of the policy context
in which teachers work are noted.

Introduction
Literacy, including oral language development, is a function of a child’s everyday life and
begins before a child enters formal schooling (Newman 2016). Oral language is widely
recognised as the foundation for reading development with strong research evidence
showing that a child’s expressive and receptive vocabularies and the ability to recall and
comprehend sentences and stories are predicative of early literacy development (Chow,
Ekholm, and Coleman 2018; Dickinson and Porche 2011; Kendeou et al. 2009; Nation et al.
2010). Strong oral language skills also provide the semantic, syntactic and phonological
base for successfully moving from oral to written language (Clay 2001; Roth, Speece, and
Cooper 2002). A contemporary view of literacy, both oral and written language, concep­
tualises literacy as an enabler of a child’s ‘independence and flexibility in society’

CONTACT Louise Paatsch louise.paatsch@deakin.edu.au Faculty of Arts & Education Geelong Waurn Ponds
Camps Locked Bag 20000 Geelong, Victoria 3220 Australia
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© TACTYC
214 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

(Newman 2016, 95) that are influenced by the ‘social and cultural contexts in which
children are reared’ (Justice and Pullen 2003, 99).
Social and cultural contexts of a child include play and playing with family
members or peers. Playing, particularly pretend play, involves transformations of
objects and actions and acting ‘as if’ (Whitebread and O’Sullivan 2012). Whitebread
and O’Sullivan (2012) argued that a child’s involvement in social pretend play was
intellectually demanding and linked to metacognition, metacommunication, and self-
regulation, which have a role in higher order processes and intentional learning (p.
198). Transformation of objects is the use of symbols in play (for example, a stick is
a person) and Piaget argued that language and pretending in play were manifesta­
tions of the ability to symbolise (Piaget 1962; Power and Radcliffe 1991). Vygotsky
proposed that mental ability can be developed within pretend play with children
separating thought from objects and actions (Vygotsky 1966).
Social and linguistic competence, which can be observed through a child’s pre­
tend play, are important for school success (Bergen 2002). The link between pretend
play and literacy has been explored through investigation of children’s oral and
narrative language (for example, see Nicolopoulou and Ilgaz 2013; Stagnitti, Bailey,
Hudspeth-Stephenson, Reynolds & Kidd, 2015). In a sample of 48 children, the
elaborateness of play and the use of symbols in play (object substitution) in pre­
school children’s play were found to predict semantic organisation of these children
up to five years later, while symbols in play was the largest predictor of narrative re-
tell (Stagnitti and Lewis 2015).
The relationship between pretend play and language development is well docu­
mented within the literature by a number of key researchers (Bergen 2002;
Nicolopoulou and Ilgaz 2013; Pellegrini and Galda 1993; Quinn, Donnolly & Kidd,
2018). As play becomes more complex, children use more symbolic language in line
with their play (Campbell et al. 2018). In a review by Quinn, Donnelly, and Kidd
(2018) 35 correlational studies were analysed to investigate the relationship between
pretend play and language development. The results demonstrated a strong relation­
ship between pretend play and language development across the literature, placing
no doubt on the relationship between pretend play and language (Quinn, Donnelly,
and Kidd 2018).
However, before children enter formal schooling some children may be delayed in
their play due to other circumstances such as developmental delay, familial environ­
ments, impoverished circumstances, or speak English as a second language (Bergen
2002; Justice and Pullen 2003). These children are at risk of entering school lagging
behind peers in their learning (Justice and Pullen 2003). Reynolds, Stagnitti, and Kidd
(2011) found that children who were entering their first year of school where the
school was located in a socio-economically disadvantaged area, had elaborate play
skills below that expected for their age. This paper extends research with children
who attend school in socio-economically disadvantaged areas by investigating spe­
cific pretend play skills in relation to children’s oral and narrative language.
This study had three main aims: (1) to investigate play and language skills of
children in their first year of school; (2) to explore the relationship between play and
language for this group of children; and (3) to identify any predictive relationships
between play and language. This study was carried out at the beginning of the
 EARLY YEARS 215

first year of school for a group of children living in a socio-economically disadvan­

taged area.

School context
The primary school where the research took place was located west of Melbourne in the
state of Victoria, Australia in an area classified as socio-economically disadvantaged (ABS
2019). At the time of data collection, the school had an enrolment of 518 students ranging
from 5 years to 13 years (Foundation to Year 6) across 22 classes. The school is an inclusive
learning community that strives to support diverse learners to reach their potential.

Materials and method

Participants
Thirty children (18 females and 12 males), who had parental consent, were provided with
a brief verbal outline of the play and the language activities prior to being invited to
participate in the study. Child verbal assent was sought before any child was included in
the study. If any child declined, despite parental consent, they were not involved in the
study. All children assented to take part in the activities. To produce results that could
have adequate power and statistical significance, 20–30 cases are considered to be the
minimum (Walliman 2006) therefore consent to participate in play and language assess­
ments was sought from the parents or caregivers of 30 children. Twenty-four children
were 5 years old and six were 6 years old (mean age = 5.56 years, standard deviation
(SD) =.42 years). All children were in the first year of formal schooling and were spread
across three classrooms. There was no significant difference between the genders in terms
of age (p = .097). All children lived in an area of social and economic disadvantage. Within
the sample of 30 children, teachers were concerned for eleven children (for example,
difficulties in following instructions, social skills, and writing) with two of the eleven
children having a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, two children were receiving
speech therapy, and one child was in out-of-home care. The children were from back­
grounds including Australian English, Indian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indonesian and Tongan
descent.

Instruments
Three standardised assessments were used in this study to measure children’s play and
language abilities – one play and two language assessments.

Child-initiated pretend play assessment (Stagnitti 2007, 2019)

A child’s pretend play ability can be measured in various ways including the use of
structured or lab-based tasks (such as the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment-
ChIPPA), observations in a playroom, or naturalistic observations (Thompson and
Goldstein 2019). For example, Broadhead’s research worked with teachers to support
playful learning and to develop play pedagogies. Specifically, they used naturalistic
216 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

observations to explore young children’s complex play development over time

(Broadhead 2009; Broadhead and Burt 2012). In contrast, research that has used the
ChIPPA, specifically measures the quality of a child’s self-initiated pretend play to identify
the areas where children may need further support and to provide teachers with a starting
point for specific play skills to support in the classroom. The focus of the current study was
to measure the quality of children’s play skills at the start of their first year of school and
therefore the ChIPPA was deemed an appropriate assessment tool.
The purpose of the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment (ChIPPA)
(Stagnitti 2007, 2019) is to measure the quality of the ability of a child to
spontaneously initiate pretend play. The ChIPPA is a norm referenced standar­
dised assessment for children aged 3 years to 7 years 11 months. The norm
sample is 633 children. For children aged 4 years and older, the ChIPPA takes
30 minutes to administer. There are two sessions within the ChIPPA: (1)
Conventional Imaginative Play where the child is presented with toys; and (2)
Symbolic Play where the child is presented with a set of unstructured objects.
The play materials are gender neutral and developmentally appropriate
(Stagnitti, Rodger, and Clarke 1997). Scores on the ChIPPA give an indication
of a child’s elaborateness and complexity of play (Percentage of Elaborate Play
scores), use of symbols in play (Number of Object Substitutions), and whether
the child can self-initiate their play (indicated by a pattern of scores including
the Number of Imitated Actions). A score for elaborateness, use of symbols in
play, and number of imitated actions is given for each play session, as well as
a total score. Table 1 is a summary of the play scores. A Clinical Observations
Form also takes into account the quality of a child’s play and time played.
In a school setting, the ChIPPA is administered in a quiet area adjoining the
child’s classroom. A sheet is placed over the back of two adult chairs to form
a play space called a ‘cubby house’ or ‘wendy house’ or ‘fort’, which creates an
open space in front of the structure. The adult and child sit beside each other
on the floor in front of the cubby house. The adult invites the child to play
whatever they would like, with one of the sets of play materials. The child is
encouraged to engage with the play materials for 15 minutes. The 15 minute
session is broken into three 5-minute segments where the child is introduced to
the play materials; then, the adult brings in a second toy figure and models five
play actions (if possible, without interrupting the child’s play), and for the final
5–minute segment the child is encouraged to continue playing. The 15-minute
play session is then repeated with the second set of play materials.
In this study, the ChIPPA was scored as the child played. Inter-rater reliability
of the ChIPPA has been established for in-situ scoring at Kappa = 0.7 (Swindells
and Stagnitti 2006) and for rating by video at Kappa = .96 to 1.00 (Stagnitti,
Unsworth, and Rodger 2000). These results represent good to excellent relia­
bility (Portney and Watkins 2000). In this study, two raters scored six children
in situ to establish similar levels of inter-rater reliability before further data
collection. The child’s raw scores were compared to a norm score for all the
elaborate play scores and for the object substitution scores for the Symbolic
Play session and total score. There is a choice of two norm scores, one based on
the z score and a re-scaled score. For z scores, the range of scores for the
 EARLY YEARS 217

Table 1. A summary of the nine ChIPPA scores.

ChIPPA
variable Description Comparison of raw score to norm score
PEPA Elaborate play and complexity during the Raw scores can be compared to a norm score
conventional conventional-imaginative play session
PEPA symbolic Elaborate play and complexity during the Raw scores can be compared to a norm score
symbolic play sessions
PEPA Elaborate play and complexity during the Raw scores can be compared to a norm score
combined ChIPPA
NOS The number of object substitutions during the No norm scores are available as most children score
conventional conventional-imaginative play session 0. Percentile ranks are available. A score here
indicates a child’s creativity
NOS symbolic The number of object substitutions during the Raw scores can be compared to a norm score and
symbolic play session percentile rank
NOS combined The number of object substitutions during the Raw scores can be compared to a norm score and
ChIPPA percentile rank
NIA The number if imitations of the examiner’s play Raw scores compared to percentile rank.
conventional actions during the conventional-imaginative
play session
NIA symbolic The number if imitations of the examiner’s play Raw scores compared to percentile rank.
actions during the symbolic play session
NIA combined The number if imitations of the examiner’s play Raw scores compared to percentile rank
actions during the ChIPPA

expected scores for age is between −1 and +1. Scores below −1 indicate a child
is at risk for play ability and scores below −2 indicate that a child requires
specific support in developing play abilities.

Expression, reception and recall of narrative instrument (Bishop, 2004)

The Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument (ERRNI; Bishop,
2004) provides a measure of a child’s expressive language and story compre­
hension. Specifically, the test measures the ability of a person to relate a story,
comprehend the story, and then remember the story after a short delay. The
ERRNI is a standardised assessment (representative UK sample of 892 people)
with norms available from four years to adult and an administration time of 8 to
10 minutes. There are two stories available to minimise practice effects. In the
context of the present study, the Fish Story was used with all 30 children. This
story is presented in pictorial form and requires the child to tell the story from
the pictures including the ability to describe the content, make links between
pictures, infer, and understand that the central character has a false belief. The
children are also invited to recall the story after a short delay of 10–30 minutes.
All verbal stories are audio-recorded then transcribed for later analysis. ERRNI
provides norms for the following four measures: (1) an information index, which
indicates how much relevant story content is provided; (2) a comprehension
measure; (3) a Mean Length of Utterance in words (MLUw), which measures the
complexity level of grammatical structure; and (4) a Forgetting index. For the
purpose of the current study, only measures of grammatical complexity (MLUw)
and Story Content (Content and ideas) were used in the analysis. The MLUw
218 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

score is calculated by dividing the number of words by the number of utter­

ances. Utterances were defined as a main clause with any dependant clauses,
while utterance boundaries were made on syntactic grounds rather than proso­
dic features. Story Content is scored according to: (1) full ideas (2 points); (2)
partial ideas (1 point); and (3) incorrect or no ideas (0 points).

Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals-preschool-Australian (Wiig, Secord,

and Semel 2006)
The purpose of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool-Australian
(CELF-P, 2006) standardised edition is to evaluate receptive and expressive language
abilities in children aged 3 years to 6 years 11 months. CELF-P consists of seven norm
referenced sub-tests (representative of an Australian and NZ sample of 342 children): (1)
Sentence Structure, which involves assessing a child’s ability to interpret a spoken sentence
of increasing length; (2) Word Structure, which assesses a child’s ability to use morphology
and use appropriate pronouns; (3) Expressive Vocabulary, which evaluates’ a child’s ability
to label pictures of people, actions and objects; (4) Concepts and Following Directions,
which includes the assessment of a child’s ability to interpret directions of increasing
complexity and length, remember names of items in order, and to identify items from
a list of choices; (5) Recalling Sentences, which evaluates a child’s ability to listen to and
repeat sentences of varying length and complexity; (6) Basic Concepts, which assesses
a child’s knowledge of concepts including size, position, quantity, etc.; and (7) Word
Classes (Receptive, Expressive and Total), which evaluates a child’s ability to understand
and express the semantic relationship between words. For each sub-test standard score,
the expected range is 7 to 13. Children’s responses to all subtests were recorded on the
assessment forms during the assessment. The administration time for all seven subtests
varies depending on the child’s language ability but typically takes between 30 and
45 minutes. There are five index scores for the CELF-P, which measure children’s overall
language abilities based on a combination of the sub-test scores. Table 2 provides
a summary of the 5 indices and the subtests included in each index. The expected
range for age for each index is 85 to 115.

Procedure
Ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University and the Victorian Department of
Education and Training. The school principal agreed for the study to take place in the
school. Once approval from the principal was obtained, teachers who taught students in
the first year of school were invited to be involved in the study. Parental consent was
received for children to undertake the assessments. Language assessments were admi­
nistered by a qualified speech-language therapist, while the play assessments were
administered by a qualified occupational therapist or play therapist. Assessors scored all
subtests according to the strict criteria outlined in each assessment manual. Children were
assessed for their language and play ability on different days and were withdrawn from
their classroom to take part in the assessments in an adjoining room to the child’s
classroom. All children were unknown to the assessors.
 EARLY YEARS 219

Table 2. Summary of measures of CELF-P Index scores.

Measures Description Subtests included
Core Language Score Measure of general language ability Sum of the scaled scores from:
● Sentence Structure
● Word Structure
● Expressive Vocabulary
Receptive Language Measure of listening and auditory comprehension Sum of the scaled scores from:
Index Score ● Sentence Structure
● Concepts & Following
Directions
● Word Classes-Receptive
(5–6 years)
Expressive Language Measure of expressive language skills Sum of the scaled scores from:
Index Score • Word Structure
• Expressive Vocabulary
• Recalling Sentences
Language Content Index Measure of various aspects of semantic development Sum of the scaled scores from:
Score • Expressive Vocabulary
• Concepts & Following
Directions
• Word Classes-Total
(5–6 years)
Language Structure Index Measure of interpretation and production of sentence and Sum of the scaled scores from:
Score word structure • Sentence Structure
• Word Structure
• Recalling Sentences

Data analysis
Data were analysed using SPSS version 24. For Aim 1, the play data and language data were
analysed using descriptive statistics and raw scores were compared to standard scores. For
Aim 2, a Pearson’s Product Correlation Coefficient was carried out, and for Aim 3 a standard
regression was conducted with the combined scores for elaborate play (PEPA combined)
and the combined scores for object substitution (NOS combined). To explore whether
language was dependent on play ability for this group of children, the play scores were the
independent variables and the language scores were the dependent variable.

Results
There were no significant differences between genders for play and language ability in
this group of 30 children.

Aim 1: play and language abilities of children in their first year of school
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the ChIPPA. Compared to the Australian
norms on the ChIPPA, the play ability of the sample of children was low to below expected
range for their age. The expected range for age is a norm score (the z score) from −1 to +1.
The scores for elaborate play (PEPA) were below that expected for age being −1.07 to
−1.37. The object substitution scores (NOS) were below expected range. By the time
children attend school, the vast majority of them can self-initiate their own play and do
not rely or imitate the modelled actions. For this group of children, 17% of the children
imitated once or more than once (indicated by a mean raw score of 1.07 and 1.3).
220 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

Table 3. Raw scores and standard scores for ChIPPA for the sample (N = 30).
Raw score Z score – Norm score
mean (standard mean
ChIPPA variable deviation) (standard deviation) Comparison to norm score
PEPA 50.5 (17.6) −1.07 (1.26) Below expectations for age
conventional
PEPA symbolic 32.3 (22.1) −1.3 (1.01) Below expectations for age
PEPA combined 83.1 (36.6) −1.37 (1.15) Below expectations for age
NOS conventional .2 (.6) <1 is evidenced in 75% of the norm
sample
NOS symbolic 6.6 (6.1) −.85 (.54) Low normal range
NOS combined 6.8 (6.1) −.85 (.51) Low normal range
NIA conventional .3 (.7) 83% score 0 More than expected
NIA symbolic .8 (1.07) 83% score 0 More than expected
NIA combined 1.1 (1.3) 17% score 1 More than expected

The quality of the spontaneous pretend play ability of children in this sample showed
ability below that expected for their age. As a group, the children were in the ‘at risk’
range for play ability for age.
Table 4 presents the children’s CELF-P language index scores in core language, recep­
tive language, expressive language, language structure, and language content. Results
showed that this group of children were within the expected range. Similar results were
evident in the two measures from the ERRNI assessment. However, examination of the
CELF-P sub-test items showed that five of the eight subtest scores were in the low
expected range for age (word structure, expressive vocabulary, concepts and following
directions, recalling sentences, and word classes receptive), while two subtest scores were
just within expected range (word classes expressive and word classes total). Only one
subtest score was within the expected range for age.

Aim 2: relationship between play and language

Table 5 presents the correlation matrix for the relationship between the raw scores for the
elaborate play and object substitution variables of the ChIPPA and standard ERRNI and
CELF-P index scores. A correlation of r = .3 to .6 indicates a moderately strong relationship
or association between the variables (Portney and Watkins 2000). Most CELF-P and ERRNI
items (with the exception of MLUw) were also significant, indicating that the results were
unlikely to be due to chance (Portney and Watkins 2000).
The results in Table 5 show positive moderate relationships between the CELF-P scores
and the ChIPPA indicating that children who scored high on one assessment were likely to
score high on the other assessment and vice versa. All CELF-P items were related to the
ChIPPA’s elaborateness of play and object substitutions in play. The ERRNI item of content
ideas was significantly, moderately related to elaborate play with conventional toys and
object substitution.

Aim 3: identification of predictive relationships between play and language

A regression analysis was carried out to investigate if language was dependent on elaborate
play scores and object substitution scores. Thus, the language scores were the dependent
 EARLY YEARS 221

Table 4. Raw scores and standard scores for the CELF and ERRNI results for the sample (N = 30).
Raw score Standard score
mean (standard mean (standard
Language variable deviation) deviation) Comparison to norm score
CELF-P sub-test items 17.1 (3.16) 10.1 (3.02) Within expected range for age (range
Sentence structure 7–13)
Word structure 15.5 (5.92) 8.87 (3.8) Low average for age (range 7–13)
Expressive vocabulary 22.3 (5.6) 8.6 (2.48) Low average for age (range 7–13)
Concepts following 12.6 (3.9) 8.4 (2.57) Low average for age
direction (range 7–13)
Recalling sentences 19 (7.45) 8.2 (2.8) Low average for age (range 7–13)
Word classes – receptive 15.2 (4.57) 8.6 (3.6) Low average for age (range 7–13)
Word classes – 8.57 (4.8) 7.6 (3.04) Just within expected range
expressive (range 7–13)
Word classes – total 23.8 (8.8) 7.97 (3.4) Just within expected range
(range 7–13)
CELF-P Index Scores 95.3 (15.6) Within expected range for age (range
Core language 85–115)
Receptive language 93.9 (13.86) Within expected range for age (range
85–115)
Expressive language 91.7 (15.1) Within expected range for age (range
85–115)
Language structure 90.3 (13.8) Within expected range for age (range
85–115)
Language content 94.2 (16.7) Within expected range for age (range
85–115)
ERRNI
MLU 6.9 (1.3) 103.07 (12.2) Within expected range for age (range
85–115)
Content Ideas 12 (3.06) 98.4 (9.3) Within expected range for age (range
85–115)
Note:
CELF-P = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool.
ERRNI = Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument.
MLU = Mean Language utterance.

Table 5. Correlation matrix of the elaborate play and object substitution variable and narrative
language and language scores (N = 30).
PEPAcon PEPAsym PEPA combined NOSsym (NOS combined
ERRNI .25 .22 .25 .15 .12
MLU
Content ideas .39* .34 .34 .38* .43*
CELF-P .47** .588** .63** .544** .522**
Core language
Receptive language .34 .476** .467** .44* .407*
Expressive language .42* .477** .532** .45* .429*
Language content .34 .368* .39* .36* .34
Language structure .48** .576** .629** .516** .496**
Note:
*p <.05; **p <.01.
PEPA con = Elaborate play with conventional toys. PEPAsym = Elaborate play with objects. PEPAcombined = Total
elaborate play. NOSsym = Object substitution with symbolic play session. NOScombined = Total object substitution
score CELF = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool ERRNIE = Expression, Reception and Recall of
Narrative Instrument MLU = Mean Language utterance.

variables and the play score was the independent variable. The overall ability to substitute
objects (NOS combined) was found to be a key play skill for core language, language content,
expressive and receptive language (see Table 6 column for Independent play variable). The
strength of the association (indicated by ή2) indicates the proportion of the language scores
222 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

Table 6. Regression results for language dependent on play ability (N = 30).

Dependent variable Independent play variable R2 F (1,14) Partial Eta squared ή2 Power
Core language NOS combined .738 3.024, p =.021 .738 .887
Language content .747 3.17, p =.017 .747 .904
Receptive language .767 3.526, p =.011 .767 .936
Expressive language .714 2.68, p =.034 .714 .838

that were associated with the ability to substitute objects in play (Tabachnick and Fidell
1996). That is, this shows that for this group of children, a significant and large amount of total
variance in the language scores was predicted from a child’s level of object substitution
ability in play.

Elaborate play with unstructured objects (PEPA symbolic) was predictive of NOS com­
bined F(1,14) = 3.2, p = .02, power .908. When analysis was carried out where the play skill,
Object substitution (NOScomb) was the dependent variable, there was no significant
prediction for receptive language with p values being higher than .05 (p = .495), expres­
sive language (p = .74), or language content (p = .15). Only core language predicted NOS
combined (F (1,14) = 3.86, p = .017) with power of .9.

Discussion
This study has shown that this group of children presented play abilities below that
expected for their age. In particular, they had difficulty elaborating their play, symbolising
in play, self-initiating their own play, and had higher numbers of imitated actions than
expected for age. These findings suggest that this group of children may present with
similar challenges in developing social skills and building friendships as reported in an
earlier study by Uren and Stagnitti (2009), who found that children who struggled with
symbolism in play (low scores in object substitution and sequencing play actions) were
rated by teachers to be disruptive or socially disconnected with peers. As such, this group
of children may require teacher support to provide opportunities for children to play with
their peers and to develop their complex play abilities within the contexts of the classroom.
The language assessments of this group of children showed that scores were within
the expected range in some language areas. However, word structure, expressive voca­
bulary, concepts following directions, recalling sentences, and receptive and expressive
word classes were low average to just within normal range. This finding is consistent with
findings from other studies with children attending schools located in disadvantaged
areas having lower oral language (Justice and Pullen 2003; Reynolds, Stagnitti, and Kidd
2011). These findings suggest that this group of children may also present with challenges
in literacy and will require targeted support that focuses on building oral language skills
throughout pretend play activities.
The new knowledge that this study brings to the research, is that, for this
group of children, object substitution ability was a key play skill that predicted
oral language, in particular, expressive and receptive language, language con­
tent and core language. Object substitution is symbols in play. To engage in
object substitution, a child uses representational thought when meaning is
ascribed to an object. In this respect, Vygotsky’s position that children separate
thought from an object when they pretend in play (Vygotsky 1966) can be seen
 EARLY YEARS 223

when children self-initiate their own ideas for the use of objects within their
play. By imposing meaning on objects used in play, children initiate thought
and create shared meaning with others in play by talking about the meaning of
the object within the play scenario (Rakoczy 2008). In this study, this ability was
not apparent in the children’s play and as such, teachers will need to provide
opportunities for children to develop complexity in play, particularly symbolic
play. It will also be important for teachers to be provided with specific profes­
sional learning opportunities to build their understandings of theories of play
and the progression of play skills in young children.
There were significant moderate relationships between object substitution ability and
narrative scores (content ideas); however, the object substitution scores did not predict
narrative language scores on the ERRNI. This is in contrast to a predictive validity study
that found that object substitution in preschool predicted narrative up to five years later
(Stagnitti and Lewis 2015). This could be because over time this predictive relationship
strengthens, or as discussed by Roskos and Christie (2013), findings can vary according to
developmental periods and a child’s socio-cultural environment.
There were significant, positive, moderate relationships between language and elabo­
rate play and object substitution and between narrative (content ideas) and elaborate
play with conventional toys and object substitution. These findings add evidence to
previous research on the relationship between self-initiated play and oral language,
which intricately underpins early literacy development (Roskos and Christie 2013). The
moderate relationships indicate that both elaborate play and language measure similar
constructs but in different ways and suggest the strong need for implementing play-
based pedagogies beyond the early childhood years and into the early years of schooling.
While the role of pretend play and the acknowledgement of diverse play pedagogies are
understood in early childhood education, less evident is the recognition of the impor­
tance of play on children’s learning within the school environment (Fleer 2015; Nolan and
Paatsch 2018).
Applying a socio-cultural lens to the findings acknowledges that there are many
influences on a child’s play and language abilities. Rigby and Rodger (2006) report
that a child’s play is shaped by a combination of development, well-being and
health, their family, their physical environment, culture and their social environment.
Similarly, familial environments impact on young children’s ability to develop age-
appropriate language skills (Justice and Pullen 2003). This study was carried out in
a socio-economic disadvantaged area where families were experiencing other stres­
ses and trauma – an environment which appears to have shaped these children’s
play and language abilities.
A socio-cultural view (Genishi and Dyson 2009; Rogoff 2003) focuses ‘attention on the
social as well as the individual nature of learning’ (Harrison and McTavish 2018, 165). This
view acknowledges that what is valued and supported in children’s learning is influenced
by the cultural practices and contexts of their communities. This suggests that teachers
must pay attention to practices which are culturally, historically and ideologically situated,
as well as the uniqueness of each family. Once this is recognised teachers can begin to
harness the children’s social histories (Razfar and Gutiérrez 2003) to build their skill
development in meaningful and respectful ways. However, as has been noted elsewhere
(see Nolan and Paatsch 2018) teachers need to be mindful of how play is valued in policy
224 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

and curriculum frameworks, particularly in the context of the early years of school, as not
everyone agrees it is a ‘necessary component for a more holistic concept of learning’
(Greve 2013, 1). As such, teachers may also need to recognise the importance of play
pedagogies in providing different types of support for young children in school who have
had limited opportunities to engage in play and the impact of this on their ongoing
learning and development.

Limitations
This was a small-scale study. Cautions should be used when generalising findings to other
groups. The power of the study was high, indicating that 30 children was an adequate
sample. The researchers who collected the data did not meet or communicate their
findings or their impressions of the children and were blind to each other’s data.

Conclusion
Symbolisation in play, particularly the ability to use objects as symbols in play is a key play
predictor for language. Elaborate play and object substitution were significantly and
moderately related to language and content ideas for narrative and thus, these play
abilities are important for literacy at school. By identifying object substitution as a key play
skill for oral language in this sample of diverse children, specific information can be given
to teachers regarding the need to support the development of symbolic thinking within
the classroom. These results also point to the importance of implementing a play-based
program for many children in their first year of schooling, particularly those children who
reside in socio-economic disadvantaged areas. Teachers working with young children in
the early years of schooling may require targeted professional learning to build under­
standings and knowledge of play and play pedagogies, and the diverse ways of providing
rich play experiences that incorporate the use of structured and unstructured props.
Further research could explore if increases in symbolic use of objects in the classroom
pedagogy impacts on play ability and children’s overall oral language abilities.

Disclosure statement
The authors were independent of the school and did not profit in any way from the research. The
school who consented to be in the research contributed funding towards the research so they could
gather data on the abilities of the children entering school.

ORCID
Louise Paatsch http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3978-9603
Andrea Nolan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3519-6317
 EARLY YEARS 225

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2019 2016. Census Community Profiles, https://www.abs.gov.au/
websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/2016%20Census%20Community%20Profiles/ . accessed 21
December 2020
Bergen, D. 2002. “The Role of Pretend Play in Children’s Cognitive Development.” Early Childhood
Research & Practice 4 (1): n1.
Bishop, D. M. 2004. Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument. Manual. London:
Harcourt Assessment.
Broadhead, P. 2009. “Conflict Resolutions and Children’s Behaviour: Observing and Understanding
Social and Cooperative Play in Early Years Educational Settings.” Early Years 29: 105–118.
doi:10.1080/09575140902864446.
Broadhead, P., and A. Burt. 2012. Understanding Young Children’s Learning through Play: Building
Playful Pedagogies. Oxon: Routledge.
Campbell, S. B., A. S. Mahoney, J. Northrup, E. L. Moore, N. B. Leezenbaum, and C. A. Brownell. 2018.
“Developmental Changes in Pretend Play from 22- to 34-Months in Younger Siblings of Children
with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 46 (3): 639. doi:10.1007/
s10802-017-0324-3.
Chow, J. C., E. Ekholm, and H. Coleman. 2018. “Does Oral Language Underpin the Development of
Later Behavior Problems? A Longitudinal Meta-analysis.” School Psychology Quarterly 33 (3):
337–349. doi:10.1037/spq0000255.
Clay, M. M. 2001. Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dickinson, D. K., and M. V. Porche. 2011. “Relation between Language Experiences in Preschool
Classrooms and Children’s Kindergarten and Fourth-grade Language and Reading Abilities.” Child
Development 82: 870–886. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x.
Fleer, M. 2015. “Pedagogical Positioning in play–Teachers Being inside and outside of Children’s
Imaginary Play.” Early Child Development and Care 185 (11–12): 1801–1814. doi:10.1080/
03004430.2015.1028393.
Genishi, C., and A. Dyson. 2009. Children’s Language and Literacy: Diverse Learners in Diverse Times.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Greve, A. 2013. “Play for Learning and Learning for Play: Children’s Play in a Toddler Group.” Nordic
Early Childhood Education Research 6 (27): 1–7.
Harrison, E., and M. McTavish. 2018. “‘I’babies: Infants’ and Toddlers’ Emergent Language and
Literacy in a Digital Culture of iDevices.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 18 (2): 163–188.
doi:10.1177/1468798416653175.
Justice, L. M., and P. C. Pullen. 2003. “Promising Interventions for Promoting Emergent Literacy Skills:
Three Evidence-Based Approaches.” Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 23 (3): 99–113.
doi:10.1177/02711214030230030101.
Kendeou, P., P. van den Broek, M. J. White, and J. S. Lynch. 2009. “Predicting Reading Comprehension
in Early Elementary School: The Independent Contributions of Oral Language and Decoding
Skills.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (4): 765–778. doi:10.1037/a0015956.
Nation, K., J. Cocksey, J. Taylor, and D. V. M. Bishop. 2010. “A Longitudinal Investigation of Early
Reading and Language Skills in Children with Poor Reading Comprehension.” The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 51 (9): 1031–1039. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02254.x.
Newman, L. 2016. “Children’s Literacy Play Environments: Snapshots of Practitioner Research for
Change.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 41 (3): 95–103. doi:10.1177/
183693911604100312.
Nicolopoulou, A., and H. Ilgaz. 2013. “What Do We Know about Pretend Play and Narrative
Development? A Response to Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, Dore, Smith, and Pamquist on “The
Impact of Pretend Play on Children’s Development: A Review of the Evidence”.” American
Journal of Play 6: 55–81.
Nolan, A., and L. Paatsch. 2018. “(Re)affirming Identities: Implementing a Play-based Approach to
Learning in the Early Years of Schooling.” International Journal of Early Years Education 26 (1):
42–55. doi:10.1080/09669760.2017.1369397.
226 K. E. STAGNITTI ET AL.

Pellegrini, A. D., and L. Galda. 1993. “Ten Years After: A Reexamination of Symbolic Play and Literacy
Research.” Reading Research Quarterly 28 (2): 163–175. doi:10.2307/747887.
Piaget, J. 1962. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. Norton: New York.
Portney, L., and M. Watkins. 2000. Foundations of Clinical Research. Applications to Practice. 2nd ed.
New Jersey, Prentice Hall Health: Upper Saddle Rive.
Power, T. J., and J. Radcliffe. 1991. “Cognitive Assessment of Preschool Play Using the Symbolic Play
Test.” In Play Diagnosis and Assessment, edited by C. Schaefer, K. Gitlin, and A. Sundgrund, 87–105,
107–109, 111, 113. New York: Wiley.
Quinn, S., S. Donnelly, and E. Kidd. 2018. “The Relationship between Symbolic Play and Language
Acquisition: A Meta-analytic Review.” Developmental Review 49: 121–136. doi:10.1016/j.
dr.2018.05.005.
Rakoczy, H. 2008. “Taking Fiction Seriously: Young Children Understand the Normative Structure of
Joint Pretence Games.” Developmental Psychology 44: 1195–1201. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.44.4.1195.
Razfar, A., and K. Gutiérrez. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Literacy: The Sociocultural
Influence.” In Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, edited by N. Hall, J. Larson, and J. Marsh,
33–47. London: Sage.
Reynolds, E., K. Stagnitti, and E. Kidd. 2011. “Play, Language and Social Skills of Children Attending a
Play-based Curriculum School and a Traditionally Structured Classroom Curriculum School in Low
Socioeconomic Areas.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36 (4): 120–130. doi:10.1177/
183693911103600416.
Rigby, P., and S. Rodger. 2006. “Developing as a Player.” In Occupational Therapy with Children.
Understanding Children’s Occupations and Enabling Participation, edited by S. Rodger and
J. Ziviani, 177–199. Melbourne: Blackwell Publishing.
Rogoff, B. 2003. The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roskos, K. A., and J. F. Christie. 2013. “Gaining Ground in Understanding the Play Literacy
Relationship.” American Journal of Play 6 (1): 82–97.
Roth, F., D. Speece, and D. Cooper. 2002. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Connection between Oral
Language and Early Reading.” The Journal of Educational Research 95:5: 259–272. doi:10.1080/
00220670209596600.
Stagnitti, K. 2007. Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment. Melbourne: Coordinates Publishing.
Stagnitti, K. 2019. Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment – 2. Learn to Play:Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia. https://www.learntoplayevents.com .
Stagnitti, K., A. Bailey, E. Hudspeth Stevenson, E. Reynolds, and E. Kidd. 2015. “An Investigation into
the Effect of Play-based Instruction on the Development of Play Skills and Oral Language: A
6-month Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Early Childhood Research: 14(4) 389-406.
Stagnitti, K., C. A. Unsworth, and S. Rodger. 2000. “Development of an Assessment to Identify Play
Behaviours that Discriminate between the Play of Typical Preschoolers and Preschoolers with
Pre-academic Problems.” Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 67: 291–303. doi:10.1177/
000841740006700507.
Stagnitti, K., and F. M. Lewis. 2015. “Quality of Pre-school Children’s Pretend Play and Subsequent
Development of Semantic Organization and Narrative Re-telling Skills.” International Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology 17 (2): 148–158. doi:10.3109/17549507.2014.941934.
Stagnitti, K., S. Rodger, and J. Clarke. 1997. “Determining Gender-neutral Toys for Play Assessment
with Preschool Children.” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 44: 119–131. doi:10.1111/
j.1440-1630.1997.tb00764.x.
Swindells, D., and K. Stagnitti. 2006. “Pretend Play and Parents’ View of Social Competence: The
Construct Validity of the Child-Initiated Pretend Play AssessmenT. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 53, 314-324.Thompson, B.N., & Goldstein, T. R. (2019). Disentangling Pretend
Play Measurement: Defining the Essential Elements and Developmental Progression of Pretense.”
Developmental Review 52: 24–41.
Tabachnick,B.G., and L. S. Fidell. 1996. Using multivariate statistics (3rd Edition.). New York:
HarperCollins.
 EARLY YEARS 227

Thompson, B., and T. R. Goldstein. 2019. “Disentangling pretend play measurement: defining the
essential elements and developmental progression of pretense,” Developmental Review, 52 (1):
24–4. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2019.100867
Uren, N., and K. Stagnitti. 2009. “Pretend Play, Social Competence and Learning in Preschool
Children.” Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 56: 33–40. doi:10.1111/j.1440-
1630.2008.00761.x.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1966. “Play and Its Role in the Mental Development of the Child.” Soviet Psychology:
Play 12: 62–76.
Whitebread, D., and L. O’Sullivan. 2012. “Preschool Children’s Social Pretend Play: Supporting the
Development of Metacommunication, Metacognition and Self-regulation.” International Journal
of Play 1: 197–213. doi:10.1080/21594937.2012.693384.
Wiig, E. H., W. A. Secord, and S. Semel. 2006. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals –
Preschool. Australia and New Zealand. 2nd ed. Pearson: Sydney.
Walliman, N. 2006. “Quantitative Data Analysis.” In Social Research Methods, 110-28. , SAGE Course
Companions. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209939