CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground to the Study
Play
can be used as an effective means to increase early literacy and promote
reading comprehension skills (Haven & Duccey, 2007). Through active
engagement, play as a pedagogical strategy can strengthen reading comprehension
by helping pupils develop of a sense of action (Alex, 1988, Craig, Hull,
Haggart & Crowder, 2001; Philips 1999). Having a sense of action is
critical for pupils to make sense of text and derive meaning from a play. In play, the interaction is personal,
engaging and immediate (Aiex, 1988). These characteristics allow play to
capture the attention of the audience. This enhances an understanding of the
play by providing a social context for literacy. Pupils can learn the social aspects of
language through observation and participation in play (Iraig, 2001). Pupils
have the ability to watch the players use action and facial expressions to
engage the audience (Aiex 1988). When pupils activate plays, they have the
opportunity to further develop their skills of comprehension by relating ideas
with expression.
A
developmental perspective pays attention to signs of maturing, whether of
children maturing or, of the maturing of play (Scarlett et al., 2005). In this
regard, Fromberg and Bergen (2006 p. xv) highlight what they describe as the
permeable nature of play as it interacts with, parallels, represents and
integrates physical, social, emotional, aesthetic and cognitive experiences.
Ethnographic studies have illustrated that young human beings play in all
societies (Schwartzman, 1978) although it is recognised that the types and
forms of children’s play and the amount of play varies depending upon age,
gender, cultural contexts and ecological characteristics of the play settings
(Armitage, 2005; Bloch and Pellegrini, 1989; Smith and Connolly, 1980;
Sutton-Smith, 1997). An anthropological view of play views it as an activity in
its own right, where the main motive for children to come together is ‘to be
where the action is’, while researchers have explored questions such as What is
play in itself? and What does it mean for the player? (James, 1998; Strandell,
2000).
A
collaborative understanding of play proposed by three ‘play advocacy’
organisations in the United Kingdom and adopted as underpinning Ireland’s
National Play Policy (2004) captures these multiple perspectives: Children’s
play is freely chosen personally directed behaviour, motivated from within by
needs, wants and desires. Play can be fun or serious. Through play children
explore social, material and imaginary worlds and their relationship with them,
elaborating all the while a flexible range of responses to the challenges they
encounter. By playing children learn and develop as individuals, and as members
of the community (National Playing Fields Association, PLAYLINK and the Children’s
Play Council (2000, p.6 cited in Ready Steady Play! A National Play Policy,
National Children’s Office, 2004).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Early
childhood years have been described as a very important stage, wherein a
substantial aspect of the child’s intellectual, socio-emotional, physical
competencies are developed. The use of play as an instructional strategy for
holistic development in early childhood classes has been variously established
by many research findings reports and scholarly writings. Yet, early childhood
teachers are said to increasingly seeing procedure of play as a waste of time
and scarce resources in their classes. This has led to the shift
of attention and concentrate on the use of other methods perceived as more
productive but not effective in given holistic development and also not
academically fruitful. Past studies in this area were concentrated on the
effectiveness of play strategy in classroom and less, if not any, attention was
placed on availability and the procedure of use this strategy. This study
therefore investigated availability, contents and procedures of using play
strategy for holistic development of preschool children in Ayedire Local
Government of Osun State.
1.3 Research Questions
The
following research questions were generated to guide this study
1.
To what extent are there play that
are context appropriate for teaching?
2.
What are the common play that
reflect the development of:
a.
Socio-emotional b. Physical c. Intellectual in the preschools
children?
3.
To what extent do the availability and content relatively influence the use of
play in preschool children?
4.
To what extent do the availability and content compositely influence the use of
play in preschool children?
1.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.
The objective of the research is to
study the availability of content and procedure of play strategy for holistic
development of preschool children.
1.5 Significance of Study
Play has been
referred to as a very important tool through which (children’s) intellectual,
socio-emotional, physical and language domains could be developed. To this end
the findings from this study would reveal the availability, contents, procedure
of use play strategy for holistic development of preschool children. Finding
from this study would also reveal the extent to which the pre- school
availability of the play to holistic development of preschool children in the
cognitive, socio-emotional and physical. Private and public school
administrators would benefit from this research as it would assist them in
placement of appropriate procedure for teacher using play for holistic
development of preschool children.
1.6 Scope of the Study.
This study investigated the availability, contents, and
procedures of using play strategies for holistic development of preschool
children. The study focused on the intellectual, socio-emotional and physical
development of children. The study covered both public and private preschool in
Ayedire L.G.
REFERENCES.
1. Bloch M.N. and Pellegrino A.D. 1989. Introduction, ways
of looking at children content and play in: M. N. Bloch and A. D. Pellegrino
(Eds). The ecological context of children play. (Norwood N. Groom Helm), 1-15.
2. James A., Jenks C. and Pront A. 1998. Theorizing
childhood. (Cambridge, polity)
3. Fromberg D.P. and Bergen D. 2006. Introduction in D.P.
Fromberg and D. Bergen (Eds). Play from
birth to twelve: Contents, perspectives and meanings. (New York,
Rutledge).
4. James E. and Reynolds G. 1992. The play is the thing:
teachers' role in children's plsy. (Newyork college press).
5. James A. 1998. Play in childhood: an anthropological
perspective, child psychology and psychiatry Review, 3, 104 -109.
6. National children Nursery Association 2002. We like this
place. Guidelines for best practice in the Design of childcare facilities. (
Dublin National children association).
7. National children office, 2004. Ready, steady, play! A
National play policy. (Dublin stationery office)
8. Scarlett W. G., Naudeau S., Salonius- Pasternak D. and
Poute I. 2005. Children's play (Thousand Oaks, Sage).
9. Schwarzman H.B. 1978. Transformations, the anthropology
of children's play. (New york, plenura press).
10. Smith P.K. and Conolly, K.J. 1980. The Ecology of
preschool behaviour. (Cambridge, Cambridge University press).
11. Strendell, H. 2000. WWhat is the use of children's play:
preparation or social participation in: Penn (Eds). Early childhood services;
theory, policy and practice. (Bucking ham: open university press), 147-157.
12. Sulton- smith B. 1997. The ambiguity of play.
(Cambridge, mass: Harvard university press)
13. The children society 2007. The good childhood: a
national inquiry.