- Email: [email protected]
Increasing preschool effectiveness: Enhancing the language abilities of 3- and 4-year-old children through planned sociodramatic play
Early Childhood
Research Quarterly,
1, 133-140 (1986)
increasing Preschool Effectiveness: Enhancing the Language Abilities of 3- and &year-old Children through Planned Sociodrama tic Play Ann K. Levy, Lyn Schaefer,
and Pamela C. Phelps Florida
State University
The results of this study support the idea that participation in sociodramatic play builds the language competence of young children and give added credence to the position that play is a vital part of good preschool programs. Specifically, the study tested the hypothesis that 3- and 4-year-old children from a variety of backgrounds who were enrolled in a preschool program with planned sociodramatic play opportunities and play tutoring would demonstrate greater than expected language development. Results showed that boys demonstrated significantly greater than expected growth on the Peabody
Picture
Vocabulary
Test (PPVT)
after 3 months
of participation
in enriched sociodramatic play with play tutoring.
Extending the verbal abilities of children is a widely accepted curriculum goal for preschool programs. The high interest in developing compensatory programs for disadvantaged children stimulated by Head Start and other federally funded programs in the 1960s and 1970s encouraged this emphasis. Various programs were developed (Bereiter & Engleman, 1960; Deutsch, 1965; Karnes, Zehabach, & Teska, 1977; Weikart, 1971; Yonemura, 1969; and others) in an effort to remediate the perceived language and cognitive deficits of disadvantaged children. The wide diversity of these programs led to a debate that still continues among early childhood educators: Are the language and cognitive skills of young children best developed by instruction in structured classroom situations, or do they grow through practice and stimulation in more natural child-like activities such as play? The purpose of this study was to help provide an answer to this question regarding preschool curriculum by testing the proposition that sociodramatic play enhances language development. In a study of preschool classrooms employing a learning-center format, Pellegrini (1984) found that the “housekeeping” center elicited more social Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed lo Ann K. Levy, 5013 Vernon Rd., Tallahassee, FL 32301. 133
134
Levy, Schaefer,
and Phelps
interaction and imaginative and multifunctional language among children than other settings studied. The play that typically takes place in housekceping centers is described by Smilansky (1968) as sociodrcllrlnfic-that is, voluntary social role taking involving two or more children. Role taking and verbal communication are the two elements necessaryto define play as sociodramatic and to set it apart from other kinds of activities. Although some forms of imaginative play can be seen in children quite young, true sociodramatic play usually develops around 3 years of age, gradually becomes more complex as children mature, and then fades around age 7 as children become more interested in gameswith rules (Piaget, 1962). According to Smilansky (1968), words are used in four ways in sociodramatic play to take the place of reality (a) to change personal identity, (b) to changethe nature of objects, (c) to substitute for action, and (d) to describe situations. In addition, language is involved in planning, developing, and maintaining play. The verbal communication in play also provides young children the satisfaction of learning new words and concepts from the vocabularies and experiencesof other participants. Bruner (1983) has stated that language is most rapidly masteredin playful activities. O ften the most complicated grammatical and pragmatic forms of speechare first used by children in play situations. Garvey and Hogan (1973) have theorized that, from birth, children want to relate to others but lack the necessarysocial and languageskills to do so. Therefore, communication among children is centered initially on play and is concerned with manipulating the physical environment. Language developswithin this context of action and rule-governedplay. As children mature and becomemore able to sustain an interaction, play activity becomesincreasinglylessimportant, and children gradually develop the ability to interact solely by verbal means. Garvey and Hogan have proposed that these early activities, which promote the acquisition and use of verbal forms of interpersonal contact, are “biologically useful” and that they precedewhat later becomesthought, writing, and adult dialogue. In sociodramatic play, the complexity of the child’s language seemsto vary according to the level of play and the age and socioeconomic background of the player. Sachs, Goldman, and Chaille (1984) found that, although 2-year-olds did not engage in true sociodramatic play, they used objects to pretend and coordinated this use of objects by language. Children 3fi years old engaged in true sociodramatic play, and the play of 5-yearolds was made richer by the use of explicit pretend utterances, the creation of imaginary past actions, and the developmentof a variety of plot elements. However, Sachs et al. found that even the 5-year-olds were hampered in developing a coherent narrative by lack of a shared background of knowledge. Smilansky’s (1968) classicstudy of disadvantagedand middle classchildren in Israel found that, when compared with disadvantaged children,
Enhancing
Language
through
Sociodramatic
Play
135
middle classchildren participated in more sociodramatic play and spoke in more and longer sentences;used a higher percentageof nouns, adverbs, and numbers; and had a richer vocabulary. In a study of disadvantagedchildren who exhibited both high and low levelsof imaginative play, Jurkovic (1978) found that those who were “good players” were significantly more verbal during play and exhibited more task-related speechthan players who were less successful. Observing native English-speaking and non-native, nonEnglish-speakingchildren, Wall and Pickert (1982) found that, in the fall, native English-speakingchildren were significantly more advanced in their play than those children unfamiliar with the language. But in the spring, when the non-native speaking children were more fluent in English, little difference was found in the play levels of the two groups. This finding suggests that play complexity is directly related to language competency. Severalstudies indicate that intervention in the form of play tutoring can increase both level of play complexity and communicative competencein children. Shores, Hester, and Strain (1976), working with both speech-and behaviorally handicappedchildren, and Rogow (1981),working with speechand visually handicapped youngsters, were able to effect a significant increasein speechusageand competenceby tutoring children in imaginative play. Smilansky (1968), and more recently Lovinger (1974), found that the teaching of sociodramatic play techniques to disadvantagedpreschool children resulted in increaseduse of language by the children. Although the subjects of these experimental interventions were from either handicapped or disadvantaged populations, the studies do suggest that participation in sociodramatic play can enhance language development. If sociodramatic play is a useful vehicle for increasing the language abilities of handicapped and disadvantaged preschoolers, it follows that participation in this activity also might increasethe language levels of nonhandicappedyoung children from a wider variety of backgrounds.The question investigated by this study was, will daily involvement in a preschool program designedto optimize opportunities for sociodramatic play increase the rate of language development in normal 3- and 4-year-old children? Most children in a preschool program will engagein a certain amount of spontaneoussociodramatic play. However, a program designedto opfimize opportunities for this type of activity must present more than the expected housekeepingcenter. In order to provide the language-learningsituations that enhance a child’s normal language development, a program must (a) capture the interest of and involve al/children (not just the “housekeepers”) and (b) provide for increasedvocabulary and concept development through rich language stimulation. In such a program, the sociodramatic play opportunities are carefully designed and structured. A variety of play topics and themes are developed through field trips, stories, films, etc. to build a shared background of knowledge (seeSachset al., 1984). A wealth of intriguing props (Enslein, 1979)as well as ample time and spaceare provided.
136
Levy, Schaefer, and Phelps
A key component is appropriate teacher intervention (Smilansky, 1968). This intervention takes place through encouragement,direction, and modeling. In such a program of planned sociodramatic play, it is hypothesized that normal 3- and 4-year-old children from a variety of backgrounds will demonstrate a greater than expected increase in language development. SETTINGS AND PROCEDURES The child care center involved in this study, located on the edge of a large state university campus,.is sponsored by the university’s Office of Student Affairs and is intended for use primarily by university students. University requirements mandate that the population represent the characteristics of the university demographics. Therefore, approximately 75% of the children attending the center are white and 25% are black. Prior to the beginning of the study, the center’s housekeepingarea consisted of a space encompassing64 sq ft. The available props were a small table with four chairs, a mirror, a small cabinet for dishes, a small sink and stove, a baby cradle with a doll, four pairs of women’s shoes, three purses, and a box containing several dressesand scarves. With the props set up in the allotted floor space, two or three children could comfortably play in the area. Daily observations showed that the center during free play were made for a week. Theseobservationsshowed that the center was used almost exclusively by girls and that it supported isolated or parallel play (Parten, 1932). After the pretest was administered, the following procedures were initiated: 1. A new housekeeping center was set up on the opposite side of the room, replacing the old area. The new spaceoccupied 300 sq ft-more than triple the spaceof the old area. This new housekeepingspacewas called the Dramatic Play Center and was divided into three play areas: a kitchen-dining room, a bedroom-dressing room, and a “theme” room. 2. The children were divided into six groups by age, each group containing four or five children. 3. The children were introduced to three themes during the 2 months of intervention: the hospital, the circus, and the grocery store. These themes were used becausethe roles suggestedby them related equally to boys and girls. 4. Stories, songs, field trips, and visitors such as a circus clown helped give the children a shared background of experiences. 5. The theme area of the Dramatic Play Center was set up with props to support the theme under study (Mathews, 1977; McLloyd, 1980).For example, during the hospital theme experience the area contained a cot, telephone, pads and pencils for writing prescriptions, face masks, bottles and creams for medicines, a stethoscope, nurses’hats, and white jackets. The
Enhancing
language
through
Sociodramatic
Play
137
teacher introduced and explained the use of each item during the children’s first visit. 6. After introducing the props, the teacher modeled appropriate play behavior by assumingone of the suggestedroles (i.e., nurse, doctor, patient). Near the end of the first session,the children were allowed to examine the props and experiencethe different roles under the teacher’sdirection. 7. On the secondvisit to the Dramatic Play Center, the children in each group were quickly reintroducedto the props and the roles they suggested.At this point, the teachersteppedaway from the play itself and took an observer or facilitator role. She answeredquestions, buttoned jackets, and “visually looked on” (Wolfgang, Mackender, & Wolfgang, 1981) the play as it unfolded. 8. The groups of children receivedat least five visits to the Dramatic Play Center during each theme. In each visit, they worked with the teacheras play facilitator (Smilansky, 1968). 9. When each child had been introduced to the theme, props similar to the ones in the theme area were placed for free play in an outdoor playground. The children could enter and leave this area at will. The teacher did not intervene in the play except to prevent aggressivebehaviors. The outside Dramatic Play Area could support six or more children in all levelsof social play (Parten, 1932) and allowed the children the freedom and time to experiment creatively with the roles and props. This free play experience afforded control of the play to the child and assistedthe child in building self-control, self-confidence, and self-reliance (Kleiber & Barnett, 1980). METHOD Subjects
The subjects for this study were 15 female and 13 male preschool children enrolled in the university laboratory school. The age range for the females was from 34 to 64 months (M=48 months); for the males, the range was from 38 to 60 months (M=49 months). No significant age difference existed betweengenders,t(25) = - 0.47, p > .05. All of the children had parents who were enrolled as students in the university; the university and community racial composition of 75% white and 25% black was represented. Instrument
The Peabody Picture VocabularyTest (PPVT), Form A, was administeredto all the subjectsbefore the changein the environment and again, using Form B, after a 3-month period. (Bochner [1978] reviewed32 researchstudies involving the PPVT and concluded that Forms A and B are approximately equivalent.) The mean scoresfor males and femalesare given in Table 1. A comparison of the pretest scoresrevealedno significant difference between the males and the females, t(25) = -0.77, p> .05.
Levy, Schaefer, and Phelps
138 Table 1.
Males Females
Means and Standard Deviations on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Pretest
Posttest
46.38 (11.31) 43.06 (11.28)
50.16 (12.87) 45.60 (8.13)
RESULTS
Due to the nature of the university setting, it was difficult to obtain a comparable, untreated control group. There was also a reluctance on the part of researchers,administrators, and teachers to withhold exposure to the setting from any of the enrolled children. The analysis used needed to accommodate a single group pretest-posttest design. However, Campbell and Stanley (1963) found this pretest-posttest design to be confounded by sources of internal invalidity (i.e., history, maturation, testing, etc.). Therefore, “value-added analysis” was selectedas an appropriate method of analyzing the data. Value-added analysis, introduced by Bryk and Weisberg(1976), and expanded by others (Bryk, Strenio, & Weisberg, 1980; Bigos, King, & Wongbundhit, 1981) validates single group pretest-posttest analysis by comparing the average observed growth of a treatment group with an estimate of the growth expected without the treatment. The first step of the analysis was to determine whether a linear relationship existed between the pretest scoreson the PPVT and the age of the subjects in months. This determination was made by regressing the pretest scoreson the age and age squared of the subjects. The squared correlations from this regressionanalysis were approximately the same. Becausenone of the squared correlations differed significantly (p> .05), it was concluded that the linearity assumption had not been violated. The second step in the analysis was to determine the value added for each individual by the intervention through planned sociodramatic play. These individual values were averaged and a mean value was found. The mean values for males and females are given in Table 2. A growth estimate of the PPVT score the subjects would have obtained after a 3-month period had the intervention not occurred was also computed. A test of significance of these values indicated that the langauge abilities of female preschoolers were not significantly enhanced by the classroom changes beyond what would be predicted by natural growth. The females had been predicted to identify, on the average, three more PPVT plates after treatment; they fell short of this, with an average identification of 2.54 plates. Males showed evidence of growth beyond natural maturation by correctly identifying more than the expected number of PPVT plates; they surpassed the expected score of 2.62 by an additional 1.76 plates.
139
Enhancing language through Sociodramatic Play Table 2. Change
Mean Actual
Growth
Mean Growth Males Females
I .76 -0.50
and Estimated
Growth
without
Environmental
Estimated Growth
I
2.62 3.04
3.717, - 0.657
* p<.ot DISCUSSION
The results of this study support the idea that participation in sociodramatic play builds language competence and gives added credenceto the position that play is an important part of preschool programs. Becausethis study differs from previous sociodramatic play intervention studies in that it deals with normal preschool children rather than disadvantaged or handicapped subjects, it suggeststhat sociodramatic play is an effective and developmentally appropriate method for increasing language ability in normal preschool children. Added validity is given to this conclusion by the fact that only the males’ language scores significantly increased beyond what could be expected as a result of maturation. Both males and females were exposed equally to a good preschool program. The difference lay in the fact that, before intervention, primarily only girls engagedin sustained sociodramatic play in the housekeepingcenter. The boys were seldom observed entering the sociodramatic play area and were engagedprimarily in rough-and-tumble play activities (Blurton Jones, 1969). With the expanded available sociodramatic play area and the enriched supply of props, the children’s play evidenced all levels of social interaction, not just the solitary and parallel play observed before the intervention (Parten, 1932). During intervention, both girls and boys were observed to participate with equal enthusiasm in sociodramatic play. REFERENCES Bereiter, C.1.. & Engleman, S. (1966). Teaching disadvanragedchildren in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bigos. Y.M., King, F.J., & Wongbundhit, Y. (1981, April). How practical is value added analysis for estimating treatment effecrs in school settings? Paper presented at annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. Blurton Jones, N. (1969). An ethological study of some aspects of social behavior of children in nursery school. In D. Morris (Ed.), Primate erlrology (pp. 347-367). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Bochner, S. (1978). Reliability of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: A review of thirty-two selected research studies published between 1965 and 1974. Psychology in the Schools, IS. 320-327.
Levy, Schaefer, and Phelps
140
Bruner. J.S. (1983). Play, thought, and language. Peabody Journal ofEducation. 60, 60-69. Bryk, A.S., Strenio. J.F., & Weisberg, H.I. (1980). A method for estimating treatment effects when individuals are growing. Journal of Educarionol Sto~isiics, 5, 5-34. Bryk. A.S., & Weisberg, H.1. (1976). Value-added analysis: A dynamic approach to the estimation of treatment effects. Journal of Educational Statisrics, 1. 127-155. Campbell, D.T.. & Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-esperimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Deutsch, M. (1965). Role of social classesin language development and cognition. American Journal
of Arthopsychiolry, 35, 206-223. anal.vsis of toy preference, social participation, and ploy activity in preage children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Merrill Palmer Institute, Detroit.
Enslein, J. (1979). An school
Garvey. C., & Hogan, R. (1973). Social speech and social interaction: Egocentrism revisited. Child
Developmen,.
44, 562-568.
Jurkovic. G.J. (1978). Relation of psycholinguistic development to imaginative play of disadvantaged preschool children. Psychology in rhe Schools, 15. 560-W. Karnes, M., Zahabach, R.R., & Teska, J.A. (1977). Conceptualization of the GOAL (Game Oriented Activities for Learning) curriculum. In M.C. Day & R.K. Parker (Eds.), The (pp. 253-288). Boston: Allyn preschool in action: Exploring early childhood programs & Bacon. Kleiber, D.A., & Barnett, L.A. (1980). Leisure in childhood. Young Children, 35. 47-53. Lovinger, S.L. (1974). Socio-dramatic play and language development in preschool disadvantaged children. Psychol0g.y in the Schools, II, 313-320. Mathews, W.S. (1977). Modes of transformation in the initiation of fantasy play. Developmental
Psychology,
13, 2 12-216.
McLloyd, V. (1980). Verbally expressedmodes of transformation in the fantasy play of black preschool children. Child Developmeni. 51. 1133-l 139. Parten, M.B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Child Development. 27, 243-269. Pellegrini. A.D. (1984). The effects of classroom ecology on preschoolers’functional uses of language. In A.D. Pellegrini & T.D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oraland wrirten language (pp. 129-144). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams ond imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton. Rogow, S.M. (1981). Developing play skills and communicative competencein multiply handicapped young people. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 75, 197-202. Sachs, J.. Goldman, J., & Chaille, C. (1984). Planning in pretend play: Using language to coordinate narrative development. In A.D. Pellegrini & T.D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language (pp. 119-128). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shores, R.E., Hester, P., & Strain, P. (1976). Effects of amount and type of teacher-child interaction on child-child interaction during free-play. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 171-175. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramaric play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Wall, S.M.. & Pickert, S. (1982). Language and play of preschool children learning English as a second language and native English speakers. Psychological Reports, 50, 119-124. Weikart, D.P. (1971). The cognitive/y oriented curriculum. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Wolfgang, C.H., Mackender, B., & Wolfgang, M. (1981). Growing and /earning fhroughplay. New York: Instructo/McGraw Hill. Yonemura. M. (1969). Developing language programs for young disadvantaged children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Research Quarterly,
1, 133-140 (1986)
increasing Preschool Effectiveness: Enhancing the Language Abilities of 3- and &year-old Children through Planned Sociodrama tic Play Ann K. Levy, Lyn Schaefer,
and Pamela C. Phelps Florida
State University
The results of this study support the idea that participation in sociodramatic play builds the language competence of young children and give added credence to the position that play is a vital part of good preschool programs. Specifically, the study tested the hypothesis that 3- and 4-year-old children from a variety of backgrounds who were enrolled in a preschool program with planned sociodramatic play opportunities and play tutoring would demonstrate greater than expected language development. Results showed that boys demonstrated significantly greater than expected growth on the Peabody
Picture
Vocabulary
Test (PPVT)
after 3 months
of participation
in enriched sociodramatic play with play tutoring.
Extending the verbal abilities of children is a widely accepted curriculum goal for preschool programs. The high interest in developing compensatory programs for disadvantaged children stimulated by Head Start and other federally funded programs in the 1960s and 1970s encouraged this emphasis. Various programs were developed (Bereiter & Engleman, 1960; Deutsch, 1965; Karnes, Zehabach, & Teska, 1977; Weikart, 1971; Yonemura, 1969; and others) in an effort to remediate the perceived language and cognitive deficits of disadvantaged children. The wide diversity of these programs led to a debate that still continues among early childhood educators: Are the language and cognitive skills of young children best developed by instruction in structured classroom situations, or do they grow through practice and stimulation in more natural child-like activities such as play? The purpose of this study was to help provide an answer to this question regarding preschool curriculum by testing the proposition that sociodramatic play enhances language development. In a study of preschool classrooms employing a learning-center format, Pellegrini (1984) found that the “housekeeping” center elicited more social Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed lo Ann K. Levy, 5013 Vernon Rd., Tallahassee, FL 32301. 133
134
Levy, Schaefer,
and Phelps
interaction and imaginative and multifunctional language among children than other settings studied. The play that typically takes place in housekceping centers is described by Smilansky (1968) as sociodrcllrlnfic-that is, voluntary social role taking involving two or more children. Role taking and verbal communication are the two elements necessaryto define play as sociodramatic and to set it apart from other kinds of activities. Although some forms of imaginative play can be seen in children quite young, true sociodramatic play usually develops around 3 years of age, gradually becomes more complex as children mature, and then fades around age 7 as children become more interested in gameswith rules (Piaget, 1962). According to Smilansky (1968), words are used in four ways in sociodramatic play to take the place of reality (a) to change personal identity, (b) to changethe nature of objects, (c) to substitute for action, and (d) to describe situations. In addition, language is involved in planning, developing, and maintaining play. The verbal communication in play also provides young children the satisfaction of learning new words and concepts from the vocabularies and experiencesof other participants. Bruner (1983) has stated that language is most rapidly masteredin playful activities. O ften the most complicated grammatical and pragmatic forms of speechare first used by children in play situations. Garvey and Hogan (1973) have theorized that, from birth, children want to relate to others but lack the necessarysocial and languageskills to do so. Therefore, communication among children is centered initially on play and is concerned with manipulating the physical environment. Language developswithin this context of action and rule-governedplay. As children mature and becomemore able to sustain an interaction, play activity becomesincreasinglylessimportant, and children gradually develop the ability to interact solely by verbal means. Garvey and Hogan have proposed that these early activities, which promote the acquisition and use of verbal forms of interpersonal contact, are “biologically useful” and that they precedewhat later becomesthought, writing, and adult dialogue. In sociodramatic play, the complexity of the child’s language seemsto vary according to the level of play and the age and socioeconomic background of the player. Sachs, Goldman, and Chaille (1984) found that, although 2-year-olds did not engage in true sociodramatic play, they used objects to pretend and coordinated this use of objects by language. Children 3fi years old engaged in true sociodramatic play, and the play of 5-yearolds was made richer by the use of explicit pretend utterances, the creation of imaginary past actions, and the developmentof a variety of plot elements. However, Sachs et al. found that even the 5-year-olds were hampered in developing a coherent narrative by lack of a shared background of knowledge. Smilansky’s (1968) classicstudy of disadvantagedand middle classchildren in Israel found that, when compared with disadvantaged children,
Enhancing
Language
through
Sociodramatic
Play
135
middle classchildren participated in more sociodramatic play and spoke in more and longer sentences;used a higher percentageof nouns, adverbs, and numbers; and had a richer vocabulary. In a study of disadvantagedchildren who exhibited both high and low levelsof imaginative play, Jurkovic (1978) found that those who were “good players” were significantly more verbal during play and exhibited more task-related speechthan players who were less successful. Observing native English-speaking and non-native, nonEnglish-speakingchildren, Wall and Pickert (1982) found that, in the fall, native English-speakingchildren were significantly more advanced in their play than those children unfamiliar with the language. But in the spring, when the non-native speaking children were more fluent in English, little difference was found in the play levels of the two groups. This finding suggests that play complexity is directly related to language competency. Severalstudies indicate that intervention in the form of play tutoring can increase both level of play complexity and communicative competencein children. Shores, Hester, and Strain (1976), working with both speech-and behaviorally handicappedchildren, and Rogow (1981),working with speechand visually handicapped youngsters, were able to effect a significant increasein speechusageand competenceby tutoring children in imaginative play. Smilansky (1968), and more recently Lovinger (1974), found that the teaching of sociodramatic play techniques to disadvantagedpreschool children resulted in increaseduse of language by the children. Although the subjects of these experimental interventions were from either handicapped or disadvantaged populations, the studies do suggest that participation in sociodramatic play can enhance language development. If sociodramatic play is a useful vehicle for increasing the language abilities of handicapped and disadvantaged preschoolers, it follows that participation in this activity also might increasethe language levels of nonhandicappedyoung children from a wider variety of backgrounds.The question investigated by this study was, will daily involvement in a preschool program designedto optimize opportunities for sociodramatic play increase the rate of language development in normal 3- and 4-year-old children? Most children in a preschool program will engagein a certain amount of spontaneoussociodramatic play. However, a program designedto opfimize opportunities for this type of activity must present more than the expected housekeepingcenter. In order to provide the language-learningsituations that enhance a child’s normal language development, a program must (a) capture the interest of and involve al/children (not just the “housekeepers”) and (b) provide for increasedvocabulary and concept development through rich language stimulation. In such a program, the sociodramatic play opportunities are carefully designed and structured. A variety of play topics and themes are developed through field trips, stories, films, etc. to build a shared background of knowledge (seeSachset al., 1984). A wealth of intriguing props (Enslein, 1979)as well as ample time and spaceare provided.
136
Levy, Schaefer, and Phelps
A key component is appropriate teacher intervention (Smilansky, 1968). This intervention takes place through encouragement,direction, and modeling. In such a program of planned sociodramatic play, it is hypothesized that normal 3- and 4-year-old children from a variety of backgrounds will demonstrate a greater than expected increase in language development. SETTINGS AND PROCEDURES The child care center involved in this study, located on the edge of a large state university campus,.is sponsored by the university’s Office of Student Affairs and is intended for use primarily by university students. University requirements mandate that the population represent the characteristics of the university demographics. Therefore, approximately 75% of the children attending the center are white and 25% are black. Prior to the beginning of the study, the center’s housekeepingarea consisted of a space encompassing64 sq ft. The available props were a small table with four chairs, a mirror, a small cabinet for dishes, a small sink and stove, a baby cradle with a doll, four pairs of women’s shoes, three purses, and a box containing several dressesand scarves. With the props set up in the allotted floor space, two or three children could comfortably play in the area. Daily observations showed that the center during free play were made for a week. Theseobservationsshowed that the center was used almost exclusively by girls and that it supported isolated or parallel play (Parten, 1932). After the pretest was administered, the following procedures were initiated: 1. A new housekeeping center was set up on the opposite side of the room, replacing the old area. The new spaceoccupied 300 sq ft-more than triple the spaceof the old area. This new housekeepingspacewas called the Dramatic Play Center and was divided into three play areas: a kitchen-dining room, a bedroom-dressing room, and a “theme” room. 2. The children were divided into six groups by age, each group containing four or five children. 3. The children were introduced to three themes during the 2 months of intervention: the hospital, the circus, and the grocery store. These themes were used becausethe roles suggestedby them related equally to boys and girls. 4. Stories, songs, field trips, and visitors such as a circus clown helped give the children a shared background of experiences. 5. The theme area of the Dramatic Play Center was set up with props to support the theme under study (Mathews, 1977; McLloyd, 1980).For example, during the hospital theme experience the area contained a cot, telephone, pads and pencils for writing prescriptions, face masks, bottles and creams for medicines, a stethoscope, nurses’hats, and white jackets. The
Enhancing
language
through
Sociodramatic
Play
137
teacher introduced and explained the use of each item during the children’s first visit. 6. After introducing the props, the teacher modeled appropriate play behavior by assumingone of the suggestedroles (i.e., nurse, doctor, patient). Near the end of the first session,the children were allowed to examine the props and experiencethe different roles under the teacher’sdirection. 7. On the secondvisit to the Dramatic Play Center, the children in each group were quickly reintroducedto the props and the roles they suggested.At this point, the teachersteppedaway from the play itself and took an observer or facilitator role. She answeredquestions, buttoned jackets, and “visually looked on” (Wolfgang, Mackender, & Wolfgang, 1981) the play as it unfolded. 8. The groups of children receivedat least five visits to the Dramatic Play Center during each theme. In each visit, they worked with the teacheras play facilitator (Smilansky, 1968). 9. When each child had been introduced to the theme, props similar to the ones in the theme area were placed for free play in an outdoor playground. The children could enter and leave this area at will. The teacher did not intervene in the play except to prevent aggressivebehaviors. The outside Dramatic Play Area could support six or more children in all levelsof social play (Parten, 1932) and allowed the children the freedom and time to experiment creatively with the roles and props. This free play experience afforded control of the play to the child and assistedthe child in building self-control, self-confidence, and self-reliance (Kleiber & Barnett, 1980). METHOD Subjects
The subjects for this study were 15 female and 13 male preschool children enrolled in the university laboratory school. The age range for the females was from 34 to 64 months (M=48 months); for the males, the range was from 38 to 60 months (M=49 months). No significant age difference existed betweengenders,t(25) = - 0.47, p > .05. All of the children had parents who were enrolled as students in the university; the university and community racial composition of 75% white and 25% black was represented. Instrument
The Peabody Picture VocabularyTest (PPVT), Form A, was administeredto all the subjectsbefore the changein the environment and again, using Form B, after a 3-month period. (Bochner [1978] reviewed32 researchstudies involving the PPVT and concluded that Forms A and B are approximately equivalent.) The mean scoresfor males and femalesare given in Table 1. A comparison of the pretest scoresrevealedno significant difference between the males and the females, t(25) = -0.77, p> .05.
Levy, Schaefer, and Phelps
138 Table 1.
Males Females
Means and Standard Deviations on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Pretest
Posttest
46.38 (11.31) 43.06 (11.28)
50.16 (12.87) 45.60 (8.13)
RESULTS
Due to the nature of the university setting, it was difficult to obtain a comparable, untreated control group. There was also a reluctance on the part of researchers,administrators, and teachers to withhold exposure to the setting from any of the enrolled children. The analysis used needed to accommodate a single group pretest-posttest design. However, Campbell and Stanley (1963) found this pretest-posttest design to be confounded by sources of internal invalidity (i.e., history, maturation, testing, etc.). Therefore, “value-added analysis” was selectedas an appropriate method of analyzing the data. Value-added analysis, introduced by Bryk and Weisberg(1976), and expanded by others (Bryk, Strenio, & Weisberg, 1980; Bigos, King, & Wongbundhit, 1981) validates single group pretest-posttest analysis by comparing the average observed growth of a treatment group with an estimate of the growth expected without the treatment. The first step of the analysis was to determine whether a linear relationship existed between the pretest scoreson the PPVT and the age of the subjects in months. This determination was made by regressing the pretest scoreson the age and age squared of the subjects. The squared correlations from this regressionanalysis were approximately the same. Becausenone of the squared correlations differed significantly (p> .05), it was concluded that the linearity assumption had not been violated. The second step in the analysis was to determine the value added for each individual by the intervention through planned sociodramatic play. These individual values were averaged and a mean value was found. The mean values for males and females are given in Table 2. A growth estimate of the PPVT score the subjects would have obtained after a 3-month period had the intervention not occurred was also computed. A test of significance of these values indicated that the langauge abilities of female preschoolers were not significantly enhanced by the classroom changes beyond what would be predicted by natural growth. The females had been predicted to identify, on the average, three more PPVT plates after treatment; they fell short of this, with an average identification of 2.54 plates. Males showed evidence of growth beyond natural maturation by correctly identifying more than the expected number of PPVT plates; they surpassed the expected score of 2.62 by an additional 1.76 plates.
139
Enhancing language through Sociodramatic Play Table 2. Change
Mean Actual
Growth
Mean Growth Males Females
I .76 -0.50
and Estimated
Growth
without
Environmental
Estimated Growth
I
2.62 3.04
3.717, - 0.657
* p<.ot DISCUSSION
The results of this study support the idea that participation in sociodramatic play builds language competence and gives added credenceto the position that play is an important part of preschool programs. Becausethis study differs from previous sociodramatic play intervention studies in that it deals with normal preschool children rather than disadvantaged or handicapped subjects, it suggeststhat sociodramatic play is an effective and developmentally appropriate method for increasing language ability in normal preschool children. Added validity is given to this conclusion by the fact that only the males’ language scores significantly increased beyond what could be expected as a result of maturation. Both males and females were exposed equally to a good preschool program. The difference lay in the fact that, before intervention, primarily only girls engagedin sustained sociodramatic play in the housekeepingcenter. The boys were seldom observed entering the sociodramatic play area and were engagedprimarily in rough-and-tumble play activities (Blurton Jones, 1969). With the expanded available sociodramatic play area and the enriched supply of props, the children’s play evidenced all levels of social interaction, not just the solitary and parallel play observed before the intervention (Parten, 1932). During intervention, both girls and boys were observed to participate with equal enthusiasm in sociodramatic play. REFERENCES Bereiter, C.1.. & Engleman, S. (1966). Teaching disadvanragedchildren in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bigos. Y.M., King, F.J., & Wongbundhit, Y. (1981, April). How practical is value added analysis for estimating treatment effecrs in school settings? Paper presented at annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. Blurton Jones, N. (1969). An ethological study of some aspects of social behavior of children in nursery school. In D. Morris (Ed.), Primate erlrology (pp. 347-367). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Bochner, S. (1978). Reliability of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: A review of thirty-two selected research studies published between 1965 and 1974. Psychology in the Schools, IS. 320-327.
Levy, Schaefer, and Phelps
140
Bruner. J.S. (1983). Play, thought, and language. Peabody Journal ofEducation. 60, 60-69. Bryk, A.S., Strenio. J.F., & Weisberg, H.I. (1980). A method for estimating treatment effects when individuals are growing. Journal of Educarionol Sto~isiics, 5, 5-34. Bryk. A.S., & Weisberg, H.1. (1976). Value-added analysis: A dynamic approach to the estimation of treatment effects. Journal of Educational Statisrics, 1. 127-155. Campbell, D.T.. & Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-esperimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Deutsch, M. (1965). Role of social classesin language development and cognition. American Journal
of Arthopsychiolry, 35, 206-223. anal.vsis of toy preference, social participation, and ploy activity in preage children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Merrill Palmer Institute, Detroit.
Enslein, J. (1979). An school
Garvey. C., & Hogan, R. (1973). Social speech and social interaction: Egocentrism revisited. Child
Developmen,.
44, 562-568.
Jurkovic. G.J. (1978). Relation of psycholinguistic development to imaginative play of disadvantaged preschool children. Psychology in rhe Schools, 15. 560-W. Karnes, M., Zahabach, R.R., & Teska, J.A. (1977). Conceptualization of the GOAL (Game Oriented Activities for Learning) curriculum. In M.C. Day & R.K. Parker (Eds.), The (pp. 253-288). Boston: Allyn preschool in action: Exploring early childhood programs & Bacon. Kleiber, D.A., & Barnett, L.A. (1980). Leisure in childhood. Young Children, 35. 47-53. Lovinger, S.L. (1974). Socio-dramatic play and language development in preschool disadvantaged children. Psychol0g.y in the Schools, II, 313-320. Mathews, W.S. (1977). Modes of transformation in the initiation of fantasy play. Developmental
Psychology,
13, 2 12-216.
McLloyd, V. (1980). Verbally expressedmodes of transformation in the fantasy play of black preschool children. Child Developmeni. 51. 1133-l 139. Parten, M.B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Child Development. 27, 243-269. Pellegrini. A.D. (1984). The effects of classroom ecology on preschoolers’functional uses of language. In A.D. Pellegrini & T.D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oraland wrirten language (pp. 129-144). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams ond imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton. Rogow, S.M. (1981). Developing play skills and communicative competencein multiply handicapped young people. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 75, 197-202. Sachs, J.. Goldman, J., & Chaille, C. (1984). Planning in pretend play: Using language to coordinate narrative development. In A.D. Pellegrini & T.D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language (pp. 119-128). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shores, R.E., Hester, P., & Strain, P. (1976). Effects of amount and type of teacher-child interaction on child-child interaction during free-play. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 171-175. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramaric play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Wall, S.M.. & Pickert, S. (1982). Language and play of preschool children learning English as a second language and native English speakers. Psychological Reports, 50, 119-124. Weikart, D.P. (1971). The cognitive/y oriented curriculum. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Wolfgang, C.H., Mackender, B., & Wolfgang, M. (1981). Growing and /earning fhroughplay. New York: Instructo/McGraw Hill. Yonemura. M. (1969). Developing language programs for young disadvantaged children. New York: Teachers College Press.