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

[larry smolucha]

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