Sociodramatic play as a method for enhancing the language performance of kindergarten age students

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 245-262 (1992)

Sociodramatic Play as a Method for Enhancing the Language Performance of Kindergarten Age Students Ann K. Levy Florida Houseof Representatives

Charles H. Wolfgang Mark A. goorland Florida State University

Are necessary skills, such as language, best taught to young children in structured kindergarten classroom environments, or are they best developed through practice and stimulation in freer child-centered activities? To assist in the resolution of this ongoing debate, this study tested the proposition that children of kindergarten age who had planned opportunities for enriched sociodramatic play would demonstrate increased levels of language performance. A single case repeated measures multiple-baseline design across subjects was used to experimentally determine that a functional relationship exists between enriched sociodramatic play and an increase in levels of language performance. Enhancing the language performance o f young children has long been a goal o f programs for young children, and, in turn, language competence has been seen as fundamental to the development of literacy (Shafer, Staab, & Smith, 1983; Torrance & Olson, 1984). In the 1960s and 1970s, Head Start and other federally funded programs designed to help disadvantaged children "catch u p " with their more academically advantaged peers encouraged the development of various programs (Bereiter & Engleman, 1966; Karnes, Zehabach, & Teska, 1977; Weikart, 1971) intended to remediate perceived language and cognitive deficits. The diversity of these programs led to a debate that still continues: Are necessary skills, such as language, best taught to young children in structured classroom environments, or are they best developed through practice and stimulation in freer child-centered Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Ann K. Levy, 5013 Vernon Road, Tallahassee, FL 32311.

245

246

Levy,Wolfgang, and Koorland

activities? The recent crescendo of interest in public school "prekindergarten" programs for young children (Grubb, 1989), the setting of national goals that include "readiness for school" (Olson, 1990; Southern Regional Education Board, 1989), and the increasingly vocal call for "developmentally appropriate practices" (Bredekamp, 1987; Council of Chief State School Officers, 1988; National Association of State Boards of Education, 1988) have all fueled the discussion. To assist practitioners searching for answers, this study tested the proposition that children of kindergarten age who had planned opportunities for enriched sociodramatic play would demonstrate increased levels of language performance. Theory suggests that language is acquired in a social context (Bernstein, 1961; Bruner, 1983; Hymes, 1972). It logically follows, therefore, that the types of social activities most enjoyed by children would provide an effective vehicle for language practice and development. The favored social activity during the ages of 4 through 6, when much language growth is still occurring (O'Donnell, Griffin, & Norris, 1967), has been found by Erikson (1963), Piaget (1962), and Smilansky (1968) to be "sociodramatic play." "Sociodramatic play" is defined as play that involves voluntary social role-taking with others (Wolfgang, Mackender, & Wolfgang, 1981). According to Smilansky (1968), sociodramatic play contains six elements or criteria: (a) imitative role play, (b) make-believe in regard to objects, (c) make-believe in regard to actions and situations, (d) persistence of 10-minute duration, (e) interaction, and (f) verbal communication. The quality of sociodramatic play can be enriched if children have (a) a shared background of experiences (Sacks, Goldman, & Chaille, 1984), Co) ample time (Smilansky, 1968), (c) adequate space (Levy, Phelps, & Schaefer, 1986), (d) realistic props (Enslein, 1979; McLloyd, 1980), and (e) teacher intervention in the form of play tutoring (Lovinger, 1974; Rogow, 1981; Shores, Hester, & Strain, 1976; Smilansky, 1968). In a series of studies covering a 12-year time span, Hart and Risley (1968, 1974, 1975, 1980) found that disadvantaged preschool children could be taught language usage more effectively "incidentally" during free play than in formal teaching sessions. In experimental studies Smilansky (1968), Lovinger (1974), Shores et al., (1976), and Rogow (1981) found that teaching young, disadvantaged, or physically and language-handicapped children how to play in a sociodramatic mode with other children resulted in increased language performance. If sociodramatic play is a useful tool for enhancing the language performance of disadvantaged and handicapped children, it follows that participation in this activity would increase the performance of young nonhandicapped children from a variety of backgrounds, such as are found in a typical public school kindergarten. It was predicted that kindergarten-age children who

Sociodramatic Playand Language

247

participated in enriched sociodramatic play would (a) use more total words in conversation, (b) increase the mean length of T-unit (measure of thought unit length and grammatical development, calculated by dividing number of words by number of independent clauses) (Hunt, 1965; O'Donnell et al., 1967), (c) use more vocabulary words specific to a defined theme of play, and (d) use an increased number of words indicating concepts of color, shape, number, quantity, space, and time (Genishi & Dyson, 1984). METHOD

A single case repeated measures multiple-baseline design across subjects, or "time-lag control" design (Hersen & Barlow, 1976), was used to experimentally determine if a functional relationship exists between enriched sociodramatic play and language performance. This design, which has been little used outside of clinical settings for studies of play or language, was employed in this study to avoid the difficulties found in traditional pre/posttest or treatment/control group experimental designs involving play and language, such as problems handling adequate sample size and obtaining appropriate outcome measures. In practice, the design was found to be particularly wellsuited to an investigation of the effect of play on language because of the close attention given to changes in individual rather than large-group behavior, the detail and reliability of repeated measurements, and the emphasis on practical rather than statistical significance (Hersen & Barlow, 1976). In a multiple-baseline design across subjects, the strategy is to apply the same treatment in sequence to different individuals at different points in time (Hersen & Barlow, 1976). The design is a systematic attempt to discover functional relationships by altering the value of an independent variable (in this case, play) and observing changes in a dependent variable (language) (Koorland & Westling, 1981). The design documents the state of the subjects' ' Functional use of language was also investigated by this study but is not included here, as a complete discussion o f the literature, methods, and findings related to functions would lengthen the article and not necessarily further inform the conclusions. All 3 subjects were found to use instrumental, regulatory, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative, and representational functions during baseline and treatment phases o f the study. Not surprisingly, the frequency o f use o f the imaginary function increased markedly during enriched sociodramatic play. A n interesting finding was that, although the subjects' use o f the imaginative function during baseline condition was frequently in "uni-functional sound effects" such as " B a n g , " the imaginative use o f language in sociodramatic play was dual purpose or " m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l . " For example, the imaginary statement, " H e r e ' s the d o c t o r , " was representational in its sociodramatic use. " I want a pizza" was imaginary and role-played the instrumental function; " H o w m u c h is the orange juice?" was both imaginary and heuristic. This dual use o f language during sociodramatic play suggests a "metalinguistic awareness" p h e n o m e n o n (or in this case a "meta-functional awareness" o f the functional use o f language) and connotes that one must understand the use o f a function before one can " p l a y " with it.

248

Table 1.

Levy, Wolfgang, and Koorland

Subjects--Descriptive Information

Name

Age at Study's Beginning

Ethnic Background

Sex

IQ

4-10"

Caucasian

Male

100

5-3

Caucasian

Male

106

5-1

Caucasian

Female

102

Subject #1

Pete Subject #2

Dan Subject #3

Amy * 4 years, 10 months

language with no intervention and then with the intervention of enriched sociodramatic play. The internal validity of this type of design depends upon the researcher's ability to rule out factors other than the treatment variable as possible causes of changes in the dependent variable (Borg & Gall, 1983). In this study, the following proscribed procedures were carefully followed to achieve internal validity: (a) frequent observations of the behaviors targeted for change, (b) reliability checks on the observations of the children's behavior, (c) description of the treatment in sufficient detail to permit replication, and (d) replication of the treatment effects within the experiment (Borg & Gall, 1983).

Subjects and Setting The study was conducted at a privately owned day care center located in a large apartment complex in a medium-sized southern city. The center was racially integrated and primarily served working-class parents. No Title XX or other subsidized day care clients were enrolled at the center. The subjects were selected from among the children enrolled in the center's summer day care program who would be entering kindergarten for the first time following the study. Three closely matched children were selected by age, IQ, ethnic background, and family and economic status (two parents with skilled or semiskilled jobs) (see Table 1). Six additional children at the center (mean age = 4 years, 11 months) served as "playmates" throughout the study.

Procedures The study was conducted in four "steps" or phases. First, language samples were collected for all 3 subjects without any treatment or intervention for 8 days (baseline). Second, Subject #1 (Pete) began the treatment by participating with a group of children in enriched sociodramatic play while Subjects #2 (Dan) and #3 (Amy) continued in baseline (no treatment) conditions

Sociodramatic Playand Language

249

(9 days). Third, Dan joined Pete in the enriched sociodramatic play group, and Amy stayed in the baseline group (9 days). Last, Amy joined Pete and Dan in the enriched sociodramatic play group (9 days). Baseline: " I m p r o m p t u " Play. The baseline or nontreatment condition, "impromptu" play, was play in which the children participated during the 25- to 30-minute observation period without any planned stimulus or teacher encouragement. The subjects and enough additional children to make a peer group of four or five members were brought to a familiar area (17 ft 4 in x 21 ft 5 in) of the center. The children were free to play with any materials ordinarily available in the area such as books, puzzles, educational toys, puppets, and a record player, or to participate in any kind of "classroomappropriate" activity. Examples of activities in which the children chose to participate included "reading" books, drawing, constructing and "riding" a train of large blocks, and walking a balance beam. An adult was available for supervision only and interacted with the children only as was necessary in a supervisory role. Treatment: "Enriched Sociodramatic" Play. During the treatment, "enriched sociodramatic" play, the designated subjects and a group of peers participated in play enriched through techniques suggested as methods for enhancing the quality of sociodramatic play. These techniques are described below:

Shared background of information. A theme was selected for each of the 9-day treatment periods (grocery store, hospital, fast-food restaurant). Each day the children participated in theme-related activities such as reading of fiction and nonfiction books, picture discussions, filmstrips, and field trips. This information provided the "raw material for play" (Smilansky, 1968) and built the shared background of information needed for rich sociodramatic play (Sacks et al., 1984). . Time, space, and props. Twenty-five to 30 minutes allowed for the children's full involvement in planning and executing the play (Sacks et al., 1984; Smilansky, 1968); adequate space (21 ft 10 in × 11 ft 2 in) encouraged all children to participate (Kritchevsky, Prescott, & Walling, 1977; Levy et al., 1986); and a large number of real or child-sized props (e.g., clothing and grocery, hospital, and restaurant equipment) were provided (Enslein, 1979; Mathews, 1977; McLloyd, 1980). It should be noted that all props were either standard equipment available at the center and found in most preschool and kindergarten classrooms--such as chairs, child-sized toy stove, and dolls--or discarded household and medical articles and donated paper goods from fast-food restaurants. No expense was incurred for additional materials or equipment.

.

250

Levy, Wolfgang, and Koorland Teacher

OPEN . . . . . l. . . . . . . I Visually [ looking on [ I Nondirective statements

Behavior

Continuum

STRUCTURED I .......... I ......... I. . . . . . I Modeling I I L I I Directive Physical statements intervention

I ...... Questions

Visually looking on The adult encourages the children to use language and to play out a variety of roles and situations using language by standing by to assist if needed. Nondireetive statements The adult verbally mirrors the play actions of the children and models appropriate language. (Example: "I see you have the dishes and are ready to set the table.") Questions The adult uses questions to encourage the children to play and use appropriate language. (Example: "Now the table is set, what's going to happen next? What will you say?") Directive statements The adult helps the children select, start, or further develop their play themes and use language by directly assigning roles, (Example: "You're the mother." "You're the doctor.") or by directly describing a new development in their play theme (Example: "Now that you've finished setting the table, the doorbell rings and the mail carrier has a special delivery letter.") Modeling The adult models appropriate play activity and language usage. (Example: The adult pretends to open a door and says, "Oh, you have a letter for me.") Physical intervention The adult introduces a new prop to encourage further play or assumes a part and inserts himself or herself into the play, modeling the language to be used. (Example: The adult picks up the telephone and calls the doctor.) Figure 1. The Teacher Behavior Continuum (Wolfgang, Mackender, & Wolfgang, 1981) Adapted to Encourage Children's Use of Language During Sociodramatic Play. 3.

P l a y facilitation. T w o adults alternated in the role o f p l a y facilitator emp l o y i n g techniques suggested b y S m i l a n s k y (1968) to e x p a n d a n d enrich the play. An adaptation of Wolfgang's Teacher Behavior Continuum ( W o l f g a n g et at., 1981), d e s c r i b e d in F i g u r e 1, p r o v i d e d a f r a m e w o r k for d e c i d i n g w h e n a n d h o w t o intervene.

To increase validity, the t w o a d u l t s r o t a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for baseline a n d t r e a t m e n t activities. To keep t h e s u b j e c t s f r o m b e i n g e x p o s e d t o t r e a t m e n t activities a n d m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e the i n d i v i d u a l baseline phases were c o m p l e t e d , a s e p a r a t e closed c l a s s r o o m was used f o r all t r e a t m e n t activities; the p r o p s a n d o t h e r m a t e r i a l s were b r o u g h t in for t h e 30-minute p l a y p e r i o d a n d t h e n r e m o v e d each d a y .

Data Collection W h e n a p p l y i n g techniques o f a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r analysis, it is i m p o r t a n t t h a t the m e a s u r e o f b e h a v i o r be as closely d e r i v e d f r o m the a c t u a l h u m a n activity

Sociodramatic Playand Language

251

as possible. Koorland and Westling (1981) note that "frequency provides a measure of proficiency" (p. 164). Therefore, the direct measure of frequency for various language behaviors is well-suited to the assessment of language performance or "proficiency." In addition, the direct measurement of language performance through analysis of audiotaped samples avoids the pitfalls involved in the use of other methods of measurement, such as normed tests, that are less suitable for repeated use in multiple-baseline designs (Cuvo, 1979). The concept of "language performance" was operationally defined as consisting of the following components measurable by analysis of transcripts of children's language:

1. Number of words. The total number of words spoken within a 15minute period. 2. Mean length of minimal terminable unit (MLT). An index of the typical length of a child's utterance and degree of grammatical development, calculated by dividing the total number of words spoken within a 15minute period by the total number of T-units (an independent clause and whatever subordinated clauses or phrases accompany it) (Hunt, 1965; O'Donnell et al., 1967). 3. Number of specific words. The total number of theme-specific words spoken within a 15-minute period. ("Vegetables" and "stockman" would be examples of specific vocabulary words related to a grocery store theme; "stethoscope" and "blood pressure" would be two words related to a hospital theme; and "menu" and "pepperoni pizza" might be elicited during a fast-food theme). 4. Number of concept words. The total number of words spoken within a 15-minute period that indicate color, shape, number, quantity, space, and time (Genishi & Dyson, 1984). Each component in the operational definition was selected for a particular purpose. Number of total words used in conversation was included because of the importance placed upon practice in the development of language. Mean length of T-unit was employed to measure length of thought unit and grammatical complexity of the children's speech. Number of vocabulary words was selected as a measure to inform the discussion regarding the effectiveness of classroom drill versus child-centered activities for developing specific skills such as vocabulary, and frequency of use of concept words was employed in response to Genishi and Dyson's (1984) suggestion that language-competent kindergartners are able to correctly use the concepts of color, shape, number, quantity, space, and time. To collect the data, forty-eight 15-minute samples of the 3 subjects' language during both "impromptu" and "enriched sociodramatic" play were audiotaped. Techniques for collecting the language samples were carefully

252

Levy, Wolfgang, and Koorland

field-tested at a second child care center before data collection began. Harnesses were devised using plastic lawn-chair webbing to support a pocket on each child's chest in which a 5 x 2½ x 1 in microcassette recorder, could be placed. So as not to single out any individual child, all children participating in the play activities wore recorder pockets, and the two recorders were rotated among the pockets. When a child's pocket did not contain a tape recorder, a block was substituted to simulate the recorder's bulk. Only language samples from the 3 subjects and an alternate, however, were transcribed and analyzed. The audiotaped samples were transcribed and analyzed according to guidelines suggested by Genishi and Dyson (1984). Frequencies were graphed for the various dependent measures. Interrater reliability regarding the number of T-units and the frequency of total words, specific vocabulary words, and concept words was determined by using the "total reliability" method (Koorland & Westling, 1981). Both the experimenter and the reliability observer analyzed several transcripts independently, and the frequencies for each measure were compared. The larger frequency obtained by one observer was divided into the smaller count obtained by the other observer and multiplied by 100. The resulting percentage was used to indicate the degree of observer agreement. Initially, interrater reliability was determined for all transcripts until the criterion of 90o70 agreement or better was achieved for all measures. Thereafter, one randomly selected baseline and one treatment transcript from each subject were scored for reliability. Mean reliabilities for baseline and treatment analyses were as follows: (a) number of words, 98 and 99; (b) number of T-units, 99 and 98; (c) number of specific vocabulary words, 100 and 95; and (d) number of concept words, 87 and 84. The reliability observer also checked for accuracy of transcription by comparing selected transcripts with the recorded sample. All compared transcripts were determined to be accurate. Procedural validity was documented for both the subjects' sociodramatic play and adult tutoring so that any language differences after treatment could be more likely attributed to the change from baseline to treatment activities. To verify that play tutoring took place during the treatment phases of the study and supervision only during the baseline phases, the adults' interactions were audiotaped and coded for predominant behavior(s) using the behaviors suggested by Wolfgang and associates' (1981) Teacher-Behavior Continuum (Figure 1) as a checklist. The data in Table 2 indicate that the adults interacted with the subjects only to the extent required for supervision during the baseline phases; when assigned to the treatment group, the adults' behavior was more likely to be characterized by one or more of the six behaviors on the Teacher Behavior Continuum. Although the two participating adults differed in age, experience, educational level, and academic major, no differences could be observed in the recorded behaviors; nor were there

2 S

18

14

16

13

2 S

2 S

0

2 S

15

2 S

2

0

2 S

0

2 S

0

2 S

3

18

1 S

0

2 S

0

2 S

4

Teacher behavior codes: V--Visually looking on N--Nondirective statements Q--Questions

Vertical lines divide baseline days from treatment days.

Amy Teacher Teacher behavior toward Amy Sociodramatic play levels

Dan Teacher Teacher behavior toward Dan Sociodramatic play levels

Sociodramatic play levels

2 S

1

0

1 S

28

2 S

19

1 Q D M P

5

0

1 S

0

1 S

18

1 Q D M P

6

Teacher Behaviors and Sociodramatic Play Levels

Pete Teacher Teacher behavior toward Pete

T a b l e 2.

15

2 S

7

1 S

14

1 D M P

7

Sample

2 D M P 21

18

2 D M P

9

D --Directive statements M--Modeling P --Physical intervention S --Supervision only

19

2 S

0

1 S

11

2 V N D

8

2 D M P 28

2 Q D M 18

27

2 Q D M P

10

1 D M P 27

30

2 V M

17

1 Q D M P

12

1 Q M P 25

1 D M P 25

1 N Q D M P 22

13

I N M P 26

1 Q D M 24

23

2 Q D M

14

Teacher codes: l--Adult 1 2--Adult 2

2 D M P 28

2 N Q D 26

21

1 Q M

11

28

1 V N

1 V Q P 30

15

1 D M P

15

30

1 V N

22

1 V N M

16

1 V N M 30

17

254

Levy, Wolfgang, and Koorland

any patterns in the data attributable to changes in adult leadership. That children did indeed engage in sociodramatic play during the treatment phases of the study was documented by devising an instrument to rate each child's overall sociodramatic play. Each of Smilansky's (1968) six criteria for sociodramatic play was assigned five levels of involvement ranging from very minimal individual involvement in play (1 on the 5-point scale) to full utilization of the criteria for rich creative sociodramatic play (a score of 5). These ratings were made and summed after each play period, yielding a sociodramatic play score ranging from 0-30. Table 2 also shows these scores over all sessions. FINDINGS

The data displayed in Table 3 and Figures 2 through 5 indicate an increase in overall frequencies for each subject on each language measure from the time of introduction into the treatment group through the end of the study, thus documenting three replications of the treatment effect. Visual inspection of the graphic displays was used to evaluate the data since the appropriateness of using statistical criteria for the evaluation of applied behavioral interventions is questioned (Hersen & Barlow, 1976). Visual inspection also allows any person examining the data to make an independent personal determination of the importance of the intervention. How much of a difference is large enough to be important? No statistician can tell us the answer. It is a question for the subject matter expert, and it may differ depending on the circumstances and values that characterize the particular setting. (Minium & Clarke, 1982, p. 275) A graphic display of the frequencies for total words spoken in conversation under both baseline and treatment conditions is presented in Figure 2 (p. 256); mean length of T-unit (MLT) is presented in Figure 3 (p. 257); number of specific vocabulary words is displayed in Figure 4 (p. 258); and number of concept words is presented in Figure 5 (p. 259). Medians during each phase are indicated by a broken line on all graphic displays. These data support the prediction that the frequency of the various dependent language measures would increase during the treatment of enriched sociodramatic play. The unusual nature of Sample 3 for " D a n " is due to Dan bringing several small cars from home on that day and monopolizing the play by verbally directing the other children in the baseline play group to move and place the cars. This activity greatly increased his volume of language for that particular day. DISCUSSION

These findings support the conclusion that a functional relationship exists between enriched sociodramatic play and increased language performance

t~n

82 269 3.3 0 26

80 266 3.3 0 23

T-units All words Mean length T-unit Specific words Concept words

Amy T-units All words Mean length T-unit Specific words Concept words

85 282 3.3 0 26

90 346 3.8 0 49

52 202 3.9 0 14

2

100 390 3.9 0 56

194 779 4.0 0 132

77 213 2.8 0 23

3

95 324 3.4 0 14

132 398 3.0 0 30

89 290 3.3 0 27

4

143 501 3.5 0 31

153 456 3.0 0 38

79 309 3.9 28 38

5

Vertical lines divide baseline days from treatment days.

Dan

117 329 2.8 0 32

1

112 384 3.4 0 31

58 204 3.5 3 17

111 406 3.7 39 69

6

7

105 382 3.6 0 43

70 252 3.6 0 27

75 244 3.3 5 34

Data from 15-Minute Audiotaped Language Samples

T-units All words Mean length T-unit Specific words Concept words

Pete

Table 3.

138 499 3.6 0 35

88 290 3.3 2 23

62 206 3.3 11 30

8

9

122 398 3.3 0 23

87 336 3.9 23 36

100 341 3.4 23 40

Sample

133 547 4.1 40 45

105 442 4.2 34 51

112 367 3.3 32 25

I0

88 358 4.0 29 29

89 366 4.1 45 45

107 370 3.5 17 22

II

77 292 3.8 22 34

79 290 3.8 49 19

81 291 3.6 9 32

12

110 456 4.2 29 31

61 225 3.7 28 28

111 428 3.9 26 42

13

119 513 4.3 37 59

88 282 3.2 26 28

97 347 3.6 19 32

14

91 379 4.2 15 49

104 412 4.0 16 55

96 310 3.2 8 15

15

116 437 3.8 24 52

135 508 3.8 21 72

16

100 393 3.9 43 49

17

256

Levy, W o l f g a n g , and K o o r l a n d

Baseline

Enriched

I

Sociodramatic

Play

I

600

I

Pete

I

oo 400

I i_..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3O0 in o)

20O

= =l

5 i

800

i =1=10 = = = i15 t_

I

c

tt3

I = = =20 = I = =25 = i i = 3 0 = = = = 3 5

500

o) CL

400

O3 "10

300

O

200

'l

~

15 ~ , , I 1 0 ,

~ , ,151 ~1, 120J , , ~25, ~ ' ' 3 0 '

~ I =35

I

600

I I

500

I

Amy

400

-- --

300

I

200

I ' = ' '5

= = ' =10 ' ' ' ' 1 5 '

' ' '20'

' '

'25

' ' '

'30'

' ' '35

Days

Figure 2. Frequencies for Total Words Used in Conversation, Baseline and Treatment Phases.

by kindergarten-age children. Because the procedural validity measures indicate clear and large differences in sociodramatic play and instruction during the treatment phase, we believe the language measure increases can be directly attributed to the treatment activities. This demonstration of effectiveness with three different children builds evidence for the generality of the treatment (Koorland & Westling, 1981). The following discussion further argues that such a functional relationship exists. The graphic displays in Figure 2 suggest that the enriched sociodramatic play increased the total number of words used in conversation by the subjects, thus effectively increasing language practice. According to Smilansky (1968), words are used in sociodramatic play to take the place of reality in four ways: (a) to change personal identity, (b) to change the nature of objects, (c) to substitute for action, and (d) to describe situations. In addition, language is involved in planning, developing, and maintaining the play. The data from this study suggest that the necessity for use of language in struc-

S o c i o d r a m a t i c Play a n d Language Baseline

257 Enriched

Sociodramatic

Play

I

I I

4

Pete

oo,,, i

a)

I

4

o. u) c

3

z:

2,

I I I '15

c~

' ' ~ ~10'

' I '15'

,I,

'20'

' ~ ~25'

' '

'30'

~ ' ~35

I

c

4

m

o

-- -- --

Amy I I

2, ' ' ' '5' Days

I ' ' '10'

' ' '15'

' ' '20'

' ' '25'

' '

'30'

' ' '35

Figure 3. Mean Length of T-Unit (Total Words/Total T-Units per 15 Minutes), Baseline and Treatment Phases.

turing successful play participation results in increased language practice as well as the more complex language structures and usage measured in this study. It is generally believed that young children use increasingly longer speech units and more complex syntax as their language competence increases (Hunt, 1965; O'Donnell et al., 1967). Each child definitely increased the MLT upon entry into the treatment phases of the study. It is interesting to note that this increase in MLT is consistently maintained throughout the treatment period by each subject, with little variation from sample to sample. The treatment data from the other dependent measures are more variable. Research by Garvey and Hogan (1973) has suggested the theory that young children lack the necessary social and language skills to relate to others. Therefore, interaction among children is centered on play that manipulates or exploits the environment. Language develops within this context of action and rule-governed play. Bruner (1983) and Snow (1983) suggest

258

Levy, Wolfgang, and Koorland Baseline

Enriched

Sociodramatic

Play

I I

40

¢0

E

/~

20

0¢ I u u z 5

z z =lq0 i

o.

Pete

i

a u =15 I I

~ 120z

u z u35

I

40,

u} "lo

I

o

I

•

u u v25 = u u =30 I

'

L

20

_

I I

-~

04

o >

40,

m

20

i u 130 i u = u 3 5

Amy

0

i

i i i 5

J a u Ul0 "

~" '" 115 "' " ' 2 ; ~''

' ~s'f'

' '3o ....

3s

Days

Figure 4. Frequencies for Use of Vocabulary Words Specific to the Theme of Play, Baseline and Treatment Phases.

that a supportive framework or "scaffold" for language learning is provided for the infant language learner by family and caretakers. The MLT data suggest that the adult roles which the subjects played during the treatment activities and the accompanying sociodramatic role-played conversations served as a supportive scaffold for the children within which they were comfortable to try out more complex or "adultlike" syntax and language. This finding has practical significance to those persons responsible for building curricula aimed at enhancing children's language competence. Visual inspection of Figure 4 clearly shows that the subjects did not use the targeted vocabulary words during impromptu free play. (A specific vocabulary word for the baseline condition, impromptu play, was any word related to a grocery store or hospital theme.) When the children were involved in the theme-related sociodramatic play activites, however, these words were used from 5 to 49 times during a 15-minute period. This suggests

Sociodramatic

Play and Language

Baseline

259

I

Enriched

Sociodramatic

Play

I 60

30 _

u~ 03

== o,

I

i ~ ~ 5 i I IlJlOJ

I i =15J

= 1201 I = 1251 I I 1301

~ I ~35

130 --

--

'

Dan

U3

60 (1)

-o

30

O

-

I

0

i

i ~5w

i , ~10,

, , ,15,

,i,

J20,

~ , =25,

i i ~301 i , , 3 5 I

U C

I

Amy

O

~

60

30 I I i ,5

~ i

~ ~10 I , ~ ~151

~ i 120J

i ~ 125~

~ i

D30~

i ,

'35

Days

Figure 5.

Frequencies for Use of Concept Words, Baseline and Treatment Phases.

that the sociodramatic play provided a vehicle for practice and mastery of the vocabulary and information to which the subjects were exposed in another context (stories, discussions, etc.), thus supporting Piaget's (1962) theory that play is pure assimilation of experience. The practical significance of this finding is important, given the number of programs for young children that have learning new vocabulary and exposure to new experiences as major program goals. A common objective of early childhood programs is concept development. Genishi and Dyson (1984) describe language-competent kindergartners as those children who can use concepts such as color, shape, and number and the relationships of quantity, space, and time, as well as listen and participate in large group discussions and small group lessons. The data in Figure 5 show that the treatment activities increased the number of concept words used by the subjects, thus suggesting that a greater understanding of the

260

Levy,Wolfgang, and Koorland

ideas represented by these words was being built. This increase in the use of concept words also supports Vygotsky's (1962) theory that the conceptual and language abilities of children are stretched through imaginative play as children rehearse or practice in play those skills they will later put into use. In conclusion, this study presents evidence to reaffirm the importance of play activities in programs for young children and validates the use of sociodramatic play as a child-centered and developmentally appropriate method for enhancing the language performance of kindergarten-age children. Given the importance of oral language competence to the development of literacy (Shafer et al., 1983; Torrance & Olson, 1984), this study makes a clear argument for including opportunities for enriched sociodramatic play in kindergarten and preschool curricula. The practical significance of this treatment lies in the effectiveness, economy, appropriateness to the developmental level of the students, and ease of implementation. Enriched sociodramatic play seems particularly effective as a means of increasing the vocabulary and syntactical complexity of young children's language. We suggest that any teacher can build a shared background of information, provide ample realistic props, and serve as a play tutor to guide the children to higher levels of play and language usage. Opportunities for rich sociodramatic play are not costly (this study spent no money for props) or time consuming; nor would it supplant other established curricular activities--if necessary, the play can take place during an activity time, in a learning center format, or during "free play." A limitation of the study lies in the technical difficulty of audiotaping and analyzing a large number of language samples, thus necessitating a small sample size. In the future, it would be useful to replicate the process with a larger sample size. Further research is also needed to determine (a) if the results observed in the summer day care setting would occur in other types of programs for young children, (b) if similar results could be obtained without all enrichment elements or if one of the enrichment techniques or combination of techniques is responsible for the effects, (c) if teachers of varying degrees of skill and background can be successful play facilitators, and (d) if the increased language performance produced by sociodramatic play generalizes to situations outside the play setting.

REFERENCES Bereiter, C.E., & Engleman, S. (1966). Teaching disadvantaged children in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall. Bernstein, B. (1961). Social class and linguistic development: A theory of social learning. In A. Halsey, J. Floud, & C. Anderson (Eds.), Education, economy, and society (pp. 289-314). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educational research. New York: Longman. Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Sociodramatic Play and Language

261

Bruner, J.S. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: W.W. Norton. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1988). A guide for state action: Early childhood and family education. Washington, DC: Author. Cuvo, A.J. (1979). Multiple-baseline design in instructional research: Pitfalls of measurement and procedural advantages. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 219-228. Enslein, J. (1979). An analysis of the toy preference, social participation, and play activity in preschool age children. Unpublished master's thesis, Merrill Palmer Institute. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton. Garvey, C., & Hogan, R. (1973). Social speech and social interaction: Egocentrism revisited. Child Development, 44, 562-568. Genishi, C., & Dyson, A.H. (1984). Language assessment in the early years. Norwood, N J: Ablex. Grubb, W.N. (1989). Young children face the states: Issues and options for early childhood programs. American Journal of Education, 97, 358-397. Hart, B.N., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Establishing the use of descriptive adjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 109-120. Hart, B.N., & Risley, T.R. (1974). Using preschool materials to modify the language of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 243-256. Hart, B.N., & Risley, T.R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420. Hart, B.N., & Risley, T.R. (1980). In vivo language intervention: Unanticipated general effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 407-432. Hersen, M., & Barlow, D.H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon. Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hymes, D. (1972). On linguistic theory, communicative competence, and the education of disadvantaged children. In M.L. Wax, S. Diamond, & F. Gearing (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 51-65). New York: Basic Books. Karnes, M., Zehabach, R.R., & Teska, J.A. (1977). Conceptualization of the GOAL (GameOriented Activities of Learning) curriculum. In M.C. Day & R.K. Parker (Eds.), The preschool in action: Exploring early childhood programs (pp. 253-288). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Koorland, M.A., & Westling, D.L. (1981). An applied behavior analysis research primer for behavioral change personnel. Behavior Disorders, 6, 164-174. Kritchevsky, S., Prescott, E., & Walling, L. (1977). Planning en vironmentsfor young children: Physical space. Washington, DC" National Association for the Education of Young Children. Levy, A.K., Phelps, P., & Schaefer, L. (1986). Enhancing language abilities of three- and four-year-old children through planned sociodramatic play opportunities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 133-140. Lovinger, S.L. (1974). Socio-dramatic play and language development in preschool disadvantaged children. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 313-320. Mathews, W.S. (1977). Modes of transformation in the initiation of fantasy play. Developmental Psychology, 13, 212-216. McLloyd, V. (1980). Verbally expressed modes of transformation in the fantasy play of black preschool children. Child Development, 51, 1133-1139. Minium, E.W., & Clarke, R.B. (1982). Elements of statistical reasoning. New York: Wiley. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1988). Right from the start. Alexandria, VA: Author. O'Donnell, R.C., Griffin, W.J., & Norris, R.C. (1967). Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

262

Levy, Wolfgang, and Koorland

Olson, L. (1990, August 19). NGA lists strategies for achieving national goals. Education Week, p. 7. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton. Rogow, S.M. (1981). Developing play skills and communicative competence in multiply handicapped young people. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 75, 197-202. Sacks, J., Goldman, J., & Chaiile, 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, N J: Ablex. Shafer, R.E., Staab, C., & Smith, K. (1983). Language functions and school success. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Shores, R.E., Hester, P., & Strain, P.S. (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 sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Snow, C. (1983). Literacy and language relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165-189. Southern Regional Education Board. (1989). Reaching the goal of readiness for school. Atlanta: Author. Torrance, N., & Olson, D.R. (1984). Oral language competency and the acquisition of literacy. In A.D. Pellegrini & T.D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language (pp. 167-182). Norwood, N J: Ablex. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. (E. Hanfman & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Weikart, D.P. (1971). The cognitively oriented curriculum. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Wolfgang, C.H., Mackender, B., & Wolfgang, M. (1981). Growing and learning through play. New York: Instructo/McGraw-Hill.