Removing props affected the children’s play in certain ways but not in others. First, the nature of the themes and the use of objects in play was altered. Props tended to have a determining effect on the play themes chosen, with effects on object use being mixed. While the amount of representation with objects remained the same across conditions (using one object to represent another), children showed an increased reference to imaginary objects under the second condition. Apparently, when props did not exist they were freely invented by the children to fit the needs of their play; when objects were available, they were used as substitutes for other objects and guided the themes chosen.
The implications for curriculum are clear: certain objects available for play in a free play situation make the play less free. If we are in part attempting to foster symbolic representation through dramatic play opportunities, special care has to be given to the number and type of props may make the activity available to more children.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Bateson, G. The message “this is play”. In R. E. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.),Child’s Play. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971.
Chaillé, C. The child’s conceptions of play, pretending and toys: Sequences and structural parallels.Human Development, 1978,21, 201–210.
Chaillé, C., & Young, P. Symbolic play in the classroom: Theory testing and curriculum development. Paper presented at the Eighth Symposium of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 18–20, 1978.
Edmonds, M. H. New directions in theories of language acquisition.Harvard Educational Review, 1976,46(2), 175–198.
Feitelson, D., & Ross, G. S. The neglected factor — Play.Human Development, 1973,16, 202–223.
Gardner, H.The Arts and Human Development: A Psychological Study of the Artistic Process. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.
Garvey, C. Some properties of social play.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1974,20, 163–180.
Greenfield, P. M. Structural parallels between language and action in development. In A. Lock (Ed.),Action, Gesture and Symbol: the Emergence of Language. New York, Academic Press, 1978.
Greenfield, P. M., & Smith, J. H.The Structure of Communication in Early Language Development. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
Hartley, R. E., Frank, L. K., & Goldenson, R. M.Understanding Children’s Play. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.
Inhelder, B., Lezine, I., Sinclair, H., & Stambak, M. Les debuts de la fonction symbolique.Archives de Psychologie, 1972, vol. XLI, no. 163, 187–243.
Nicolich, L. M. Beyond sensorimotor intelligence: Assessment of symbolic maturity through analysis of pretend play.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1977,23, 89–99.
Piaget, J.Play, Dreams and Imitation. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
Singer, J.The Child’s World of Make-Believe: Experimental Studies of Imaginative Play. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Smilansky, S.The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Preschool Children. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.
Sutton-Smith, B. The role of play in cognitive development. In W. Hartup & N. Smothergill (Eds.),The Young Child: Reviews of Research. Washington: NAEYC, 1967.
About this article
Cite this article
Chaillé, C., Young, P. Some issues linking research on children’s play and education: are they “only playing”. IJEC 12, 52–56 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03176864
- Early Childhood Educator
- Free Play
- Social Play
- Pretend Play
- Symbolic Play