[Xmca-l] Re: Play and symbolic thought --

[Goncu, Artin]

Hi Beth and Monica--

Although I have quietly followed some of the posts on this issue, I don't
remember exactly what was said before. So, if anything I say is redundant
or not so relevant, just feel free to ignore it..

In discussions of whether or how imaginative play leads to development of
symbols, one important issue that is often not considered is the
motivation for play.  A shared conviction among theorists like Freud,
Piaget, and Vygotsky is that children play in order to make sense of an
affectively significant experience, e.g., to heal a wound (Freud), to
develop mastery over a personal past experience (Piaget), or to anticipate
future based on partial understandings of an experience (Vygotsky.)  I
believe all of these to be true based on my own work with young children
as a former preschool teacher and some clinical experience with children
who had learning disabilities.  Suzanne Gaskins and I wrote about these
issues together before too.  Cindy Dell Clark's book on the role of play
in the treatment of children with asthma and diabetes supports this idea
too.  So, it seems to me that if we can show/understand the connection
between children's play activities and their antecedents, it will be
easier to see that even by virtue of expressing something of personal
significance in play, children are making an effort to symbolize that
experience.

A second issue relates to how the experience gets represented.  In the
1970s and 80s, Greta Fein wrote a lot about this issue.  She argued and
showed that the road to symbolization begins with placing a familiar
personal event of significance in the context of play, e.g., an infant's
pretending to drink from an empty bottle.  Greta called this
de-contextualization.  With age, a de-contextualized event gets
transformed through different means, i.e., objects and ideas, and
opportunities as afforded by their cultural/community contexts.  In other
words, something can be represented either through a very structured toy
or not using any object at all.  So, if we see symbolization taking place
in many different ways, it may be easier to see how play leads to symbolic
development.  (One example I can think of from the arts is how
representation of a tree had changed in Modigliani's paintings from tree
figures to geometric shapes...)

Basically, I am suggesting that the connection between play and symbolic
development will be easier to see if we understand the connection between
play activities and their non-play antecedents, and also that there is a
developmental/contextual order/preference to how experiences get
represented in play.

All the best, ag

On Fri, December 13, 2013 10:34 am, Beth Ferholt wrote:
> We apologize for the delay responding:
> We have been thinking about what you all wrote, reading the suggestions
> and
> then going into the preschools to gather more data in response ...
> This is what we came up with, and we are working here as much from
> interviews with the many (35) teachers with whom we are working as from
> observations of teaching and learning:
>
> We think that the way we asked the question enforced some dichotomies that
> we want to challenge, particularly between form and content -- but also
> between symbolic thought and play.  So, to the many of you who said this:
> what do we mean by symbolic thought? the simplest unit?: let us try a
> different approach to this dilemma.  Peg: Mash up -- yes!  But before they
> mash maybe we are seeing some preparation for the mash?
>
> Gunilla Lindqvist (1995) was searching for a common denominator between
> art
> and play when she developed playworlds.  Discussions with Kiyo (Mizasaki)
> during the recent playworld conference have brought us back to this
> question.  So has a paper Mike suggested by Dennis Newman: Learning to
> Draw
> a Picture in Discourse Processes, 1980.
>
> It seems to us that the teachers here are creating a pivot in the way they
> work with the children.  This is based in what they do in their art
> studios, guided by the artist who works with them (called an atelierista
> in
> the Reggio Emilia preschools).  They spend lots and lots of time with the
> children in very small groups or one-on-one, from the time the children
> are
> one, doing what they call listening to the children and helping them to
> look.
>
> But we think, following Newman, that what they are doing with the children
> that is working like the pivot in play to divorce object from meaning, is
> to be found in creation of an understanding of artistic representation
> within the social context of the studio/building room, etc.  The teachers
> speak to the children endlessly -- and not a lecture, this is careful
> listening and dialogue with what the children do and say -- about how to
> represent what they see.  The bus is long -- this is why we have a long
> paper (lots of touching the paper and the photo of the bus (that they rode
> that AM!) here -- ).  The bus is what color?  What paint will you use?
>  They also are careful to use materials that do not interfere with this
> process.  If it is a long piece of paper, and the question is about color
> (not lines) then they have a thick brush.  Also, the emphasis is on the
> children feeling proud at being able to draw what they want to draw.  In
> this the teacher is looking for that moment of understanding that the
> stick
> (picture) is a horse (bus).  (The children really do shine at this moment,
> it is wild!)
>
> All this means that when the children are one and a half they can make a
>  blade of grass into a key in a story because they are familiar with
> pivots.  The  lesson was not actually about painting.  Or, it was, but the
> social context -- the events above -- shaped what the lesson was, and it
> was a lesson about representation.
>
> A favorite example of the environment/materials supporting this
> pivot-creation is the toilet paper tubes with their photos laminated on
> them.  In the block area they and their friends -- represented by toilet
> paper tubes -- play in the block buildings they make.  When the two year
> olds start to point out that this is them, it is as if we could SEE that
> the art activities and the play DO have a common denominator.
>
> OK, we are still exploring, and we are thinking about ALL the responses
> you
> gave us although we do not yet have responses to all.
>
> To the suggestion of posting footage, we would like to but our IRB does
> not
> allow it.
>
> TO Nacho -- Hi : ) !  Great tip that as you see we followed!!!!!
>
> Very happy to have more feedback, as this back and forth between you all
> and the teachers is a wonderful social context for our development in
> relation to this problem!
>
> Beth and Monica
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:32 AM, larry smolucha
> <lsmolucha@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Message from Francine:
>> Beth,
>> I this is what I think is going on at the preschool you describe. Over
>> the
>> past 40 years, I have observed several changes in what was deemed
>> ideologically fashionable in education and psychology. There was a time
>> when Piaget was cutting edge (in the USA 1960's) - the devotees were
>> passionate - it was like Beatlemania. The Vygotsky era in the USA had to
>> buck up against the Piagetians, but gradually, Vygotsky gained
>> credibility.
>> It is important to keep in mind the cold war politics stifling and then
>> shaping the discourse. Alongside this was the discovery of Derrida as a
>> sort of cult figure. What would be more predictable than to have a
>> post-modern movement whose agenda is to render obsolete all of the
>> towering
>> intellects of the 20th century to replace them with some turn of the
>> century Millennium figures [Dahlberg, Moss, Deluze).
>> Like Andy Blunden, I do see anything in the use of object substitutions
>> at
>> age onethat undermines anything in Vygotskian theory (blade of grass as
>> a
>> key). Certainly, thebehavior is precocious. Also, the precocious
>> recognition of alphabet letters and numbers in the second year of life,
>> does not disprove Vygotsky or Piaget.
>> As a play researcher, I would have a few questions about the use of the
>> blade of grassas a key: (1) What served as the lock? A real lock, on a
>> door
>> perhaps? So was the bladeof grass stuck in the lock? (2) Did the toddler
>> say anything indicating it was a key or the action was unlocking the
>> door?
>> Just sticking a blade of grass in a lock would be coded [in a
>> dissertation] as a proto-object substitution. Additional gestures such
>> as
>> turning the blade of grass like a key, and/or turning the handle of the
>> door and opening it, would support a 'symbolic' function.Certainly,
>> naming
>> and especially renaming the blade of grass would be evidence.From your
>> description of one year olds (plural) 'opening a locked door' and
>> describing what is inside, I suspect that the teachers were leading the
>> children in this play activity and that is was actually guided pretend
>> play
>> that was scaffolded by the adults.
>> In my dissertation, I observed the development of object substitutions
>> (and play gesturesthat suggest invisible objects) in six children from
>> 14
>> months of age until 28 months of age.In a half hour observation at 14
>> months, one child picked up a stacking cup and put it to her lips as if
>> to
>> drink  (coded as proto-object substitution with 'invisible substance').
>> The
>> gesture could have just been Functionlust (Karl Groos' definition of
>> pretend play)and that is how the stacking gesture (you describe) with an
>> imaginary 'ring' would be coded.
>> In 2002, I did a presentation at the ISCRAT Congress in Amsterdam, at
>> the
>> invitation of Bert van Oers. I attended a symposium on play and soon
>> discovered that Activity Theoryproponents were totally unaware of the
>> substantial research done on Vygotsky's theory of play (not associated
>> with
>> Activity Theory.) As early as 1982, Inge Bretherton edited a book
>> titled
>> Symbolic Play that included some examples of pretend play at age one
>> (particularlyPeggy Miller's chapter on Mother-Baby Role Play).
>> Beth, can you find a citation for the 2013 review of research that Bert
>> van Oers referredto when saying the research on the relationship between
>> play and symbolic developmentwas inconclusive. I bet it was a very
>> narrow
>> review of just Activity Theory based studies.
>> Sorry, I do not have an extra copy of my dissertation. Can you get it
>> on-line or on loan?It was completed in 1991 at the University of
>> Chicago. I
>> will see what I can do to makeit more readily available.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:47:04 +0200
>> > From: bferholt@gmail.com
>> > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Play and symbolic thought --
>> >
>> > Thank you for all the interesting responses, both the ones in this
>> chain
>> > and the many private responses we received -- we have been hard at
>> work
>> > thinking and reading in response!
>> >
>> > We had not read all of the things that people sent, before --
>> Francine,
>> can
>> > you send your dissertation? -- but we were familiar with much of it of
>> it,
>> > also the work on play and narrative development, language development,
>> and
>> > metaphor. BTW, we just heard Bert van Oers talk, a very interesting
>> talk,
>> > and he mentioned near the start that the connection was inconclusive
>> (a
>> > 2013 literature review – ).
>> >
>> > However, what made us reach out to XMCA was the following dilemma:
>> >
>> > The teachers at the preschool where we are working are generally
>> suspicious
>> > of developmental theory. Gunilla Dahlberg and Peter Moss write some of
>> the
>> > books they read in their training, and argue convincingly that
>> > developmental theory is very important to the discourse that supports
>> a
>> > deficit model of the child. These teachers turn to Deluze before
>> Piaget
>> and
>> > they are also wary of Vygotsky -- through the looking glass compared
>> to
>> > preschools in the US -- *and* these are the preschools that (because
>> of
>> > their practice) we would most want to be in if we were young children,
>> or
>> > would most want our kids and grandkids to be in, hand-down.
>> >
>> > In any case, many of these teachers have taken on the task of showing
>> us
>> > that our idea that play leads to symbolic thought is not right. They
>> show
>> > us all this amazing play -- and symbolic thought -- that one year olds
>> are
>> > doing. They make films and take photographs and the give hour-long
>> > presentations to us : ).
>> >
>> > For instance, they showed us one year olds pretending a blade of grass
>> was
>> > a key and "opening" a locked door and describing what they saw inside.
>> They
>> > showed us one year olds using letters and numbers. In fact, my own
>> just-two
>> > year old, who has been attending their preschool for almost a year,
>> could
>> > identify letters and numbers months ago, and also seems to have an
>> idea
>> of
>> > what these symbols mean/ are for (although I have to think more about
>> why I
>> > think this -- I DO think it is right, but why -- ). Many children in
>> my
>> > child's class do this, he is certainly not "gifted" when it come to
>> > reading, so the point is that I had to see it in a child I knew really
>> well
>> > to believe it ... and I did, and I do.
>> >
>> > So, we are stuck. We really are not ready to give up the relationship
>> > between play and symbolic thought. But we are confused by what we are
>> > seeing these very young children doing, and I suppose that when we
>> wrote
>> > XMCA we were sort of hoping for some impossible and longitudinal
>> experiment
>> > that showed that without play symbolic thought does not develop : ) .
>> Of
>> > course we know from Gaskins and Goncu that this is probably not right?
>> So
>> > perhaps an experiment that showed children incapable of symbolic
>> thought,
>> > playing, and then all of a sudden -- presto – hmmm.
>> >
>> > Do people have further thoughts or questions for us? THey would be
>> much
>> > appreciated. We don't want to leave the teachers without defending
>> what
>> we
>> > still think is so important about play, but maybe children are more
>> capable
>> > of both pretend play and symbolic thought, when they are very, very
>> young,
>> > than we thought after our years of teaching in other contexts (in
>> which
>> we
>> > were less supported in seeing the competent child -- really the
>> competent
>> > toddler or even baby in this case) and than we though about after our
>> > reading of VYgotsky on play.
>> >
>> > Thanks to a few comments we ARE back to Wartovsky – It may be less
>> about
>> > seeing a competent child in these schools, than about their emphasis
>> on
>> the
>> > arts?  Or maybe it’s both?
>> >
>> > THank you all again for the help with this, Beth and Monica
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:18 AM, larry smolucha <lsmolucha@hotmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Message from Francine Smolucha:
>> > > Beth,
>> > > I would not hesitate to say that play is essential for
>> > > development(cognitive, social, emotional,and neurological).
>> > > Elena Bodrova and Deborah Leong's Tools of the Mind Preschool
>> > > Curriculumhas also provided supporting evidence that spans these
>> four
>> > > domains.They have an ongoing study with the University of
>> Chicago.While
>> > > their focus is on self-regulation which itself courses all four
>> > > domains,they also teach the preschool teachers how to teach the
>> children to
>> > > use object substitutions in pretend play. There is much potential
>> here
>> for
>> > > a systematic study of the role of object substitutions in learning
>> to
>> use
>> > > symbol systems.
>> > > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:34:28 +0200
>> > > > From: bferholt@gmail.com
>> > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Play and symbolic thought --
>> > > >
>> > > > We will look at your dissertation, from 1991, this is helpful.
>> And
>> yes,
>> > > > this is what we are thinking about.  Your response makes me think
>> more
>> > > > broadly about the challenge the teachers we are working with are
>> posing
>> > > to
>> > > > our conception of the importance of play in child development ...
>> I
>> think
>> > > > we must be more clear about this before we can answer my question,
>> above.
>> > > >  I don't think we want to say play is essential, so then we need
>> to
>> ask
>> > > why
>> > > > we want to say it is hard to replace, or particularly efficient at
>> what
>> > > it
>> > > > does -- The response will not be found in one experiment. Thank
>> you!
>> > >  Beth
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:01 AM, larry smolucha <
>> lsmolucha@hotmail.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Message from Francine Smolucha:
>> > > > > Beth,
>> > > > > According to Vygotsky, object substitutions in pretend play
>> (such
>> as
>> > > > > riding on a stick as if it were a  horse) are the pivot for
>> separating
>> > > > > meaning from object. The ability to make the gesture with a
>> non-replica
>> > > > > object leads to more abstract symbols such as using pictorial
>> > > > > representation (such as stick people and stick animals in
>> drawings, i.
>> > > e.,
>> > > > > line drawings) to words made out of alphabet letters and
>> numerical
>> > > > > notations. I do not know of any one longitudinal study that
>> documented
>> > > this
>> > > > > progression, but there are certainly studies thatfocused on
>> specific
>> > > > > components. My doctoral dissertation University of Chicago
>> > > 1991documented
>> > > > > how objects changed their names and functions in pretend play (a
>> > > > > longitudinal study of toddlers aged 14- to 28- months.) Isn't
>> that
>> the
>> > > > > basic definition of a symbol - that one object can stand for
>> another
>> > > > > (re-present another)???
>> > > > > Are you thinking of something along these lines?
>> > > > > > Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:31:41 +0200
>> > > > > > From: bferholt@gmail.com
>> > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Play and symbolic thought --
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We are wondering if there is anything actually showing that
>> play
>> > > allows
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > the development of symbolic thought ... we do not have an idea
>> what
>> > > this
>> > > > > > experiment could look like : ) ... anytime it was done is
>> fine!
>> Beth
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Hansen, Monica <
>> > > > > > monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Beth,
>> > > > > > > What specifically about Vygotsky's claims and the
>> relationship
>> > > between
>> > > > > > > play and symbolic thought are you looking for research to
>> > > > > substantiate? Are
>> > > > > > > you looking for contemporary research? What kind of
>> research?
>> The
>> > > path
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > not always easy or direct because Vygotsky's thoughts
>> encompassed
>> > > > > larger
>> > > > > > > ideas within which a myriad of approaches to research on
>> this
>> topic
>> > > > > can be
>> > > > > > > framed and approached. At least this has been my experience
>> in
>> > > hunting
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > > down :)
>> > > > > > > --The other Monica
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>> > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Beth Ferholt
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:06 AM
>> > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > > > > > > Cc: xmca-l@ucsd.edu
>> > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Play and symbolic thought --
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Monica and I have been talking about Vygotsky's work on the
>> > > > > relationship
>> > > > > > > between play and symbolic thought and been being challenged
>> by
>> > > Swedish
>> > > > > > > preschool teachers.  Is there an experiment that shows
>> Vygotsky was
>> > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > in his claims about this relationship?  We can't find any!
>> > > > > > > Tanks,
>> > > > > > > Beth
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Beth Ferholt
>> > > > > > > Assistant Professor
>> > > > > > > School of Education
>> > > > > > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York
>> > > > > > > 2900 Bedford Avenue
>> > > > > > > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>> > > > > > > Phone: (718) 951-5205
>> > > > > > > Fax: (718) 951-4816
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Beth Ferholt
>> > > > > > Assistant Professor
>> > > > > > School of Education
>> > > > > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York
>> > > > > > 2900 Bedford Avenue
>> > > > > > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>> > > > > > Phone: (718) 951-5205
>> > > > > > Fax: (718) 951-4816
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Beth Ferholt
>> > > > Assistant Professor
>> > > > School of Education
>> > > > Brooklyn College, City University of New York
>> > > > 2900 Bedford Avenue
>> > > > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>> > > >
>> > > > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>> > > > Phone: (718) 951-5205
>> > > > Fax: (718) 951-4816
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Beth Ferholt
>> > Assistant Professor
>> > School of Education
>> > Brooklyn College, City University of New York
>> > 2900 Bedford Avenue
>> > Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>> >
>> > Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
>> > Phone: (718) 951-5205
>> > Fax: (718) 951-4816
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Beth Ferholt
> Assistant Professor
> School of Education
> Brooklyn College, City University of New York
> 2900 Bedford Avenue
> Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
>
> Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
> Phone: (718) 951-5205
> Fax: (718) 951-4816
>
>


Artin Goncu, Ph.D
Professor Emeritus,
University of Illinois at Chicago
College of Education M/C 147
1040 W. Harrison St.
Chicago, IL 60607