APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

Leonie Gasper

Victoria University

Subject: APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Assignment: Observational case study

Student No: 1105600

Tutor: Dr Karen Hallam

Submitted: 04 October, 2010

1
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

From January 2013, all Australian children aged approximately four years of age will have

access to 15 kindergarten hours a week, up five hours a week from previous years (Victoria State

Government [VSG], 2010). This shift will enable children to have universal access to 15 hours of

kindergarten in the year before they start primary school, acknowledging that quality kindergartens

enhance children’s learning, with positive effects continuing into adult life (VSG, 2010). Bryant,

Clifford and Peisner (1991) suggest that quality kindergarten programs highlight learning by means

of active exploration and investigation via a play based curriculum.

However defining the word play is difficult, with definitions ranging from structural ones,

defining play as characteristic gestures or actions, to functional classifications that define play as

being pleasurable but having no clear purpose (Smith & Vollstedt, 1985). Parten (1932) and

Smilansky (1968) are two influential theorists that have examined the process in which play

develops in the preschool years. Whilst Parten (1932) observed and subsequently illustrated how

social play develops in children, Smilansky (1968) examined the cognitive play behaviours of

children. Consequently Smilansky (1968) defined play into four categories: (1) Functional play -

simple repetitive muscle movements with or without object; (2) Constructive play - manipulation of

objects or materials to create something; (3) Dramatic Play - play involving imaginary

people/situations; (4) Games with rules - play involving organized games with known rules and

consequences (Rubin, 2001, p. 1). These four categories of play have been understood to progress

in a comparatively fixed succession with functional play emerging first in infancy and the highest

category of cognitive play, games with rules, emerging last at approximately seven years of age

(Rubin, 2001).
2
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

According to Smilansky’s (1968) cognitive play hierarchy, children during the preschool

years participate predominately in functional and constructive play categories. Furthermore when

examining the play behaviours of 28 kindergarten children Ruben, Watson and Jambor (1978)

further found that children during their kindergarten years partake in considerably more functional

and constructive play then dramatic play or games with rules. Hence the purpose of this observation

is to observe and categorize as per Smilansky’s (1968) cognitive play hierarchy, one kindergarten

child’s cognitive play behaviour during two free play sessions. Furthermore the antecedents and

consequences of the child’s cognitive play behaviour will be examined during the two free play

sessions. For the purpose of this paper and in order to protect the confidentiality of the observed

child, the child will be referred to as X.

X is a young boy who celebrated his fifth birthday in August this year. He lives in a nuclear

family with his mother, father and male sibling, aged two years and eight months. Both parents are

well educated, with X’s mother having completed a masters degree in health science and X’s father

an honours degree in finance.

X has been attending an inner city local day care / kindergarten centre three days a week

since the age of 11 months, this kindergarten is the consequent setting for the observation. The

chosen kindergarten has both indoor and outdoor areas, with both sections comprising of play

equipment that promote all four categories of Smilansky’s (1968) cognitive play hierarchy. The play

equipment in the kindergartens indoor and outdoor areas include art and craft supplies, Lego table,

doll house, dress up corner, slide and sandpit.

Observation 1 – Thursday 1.00 pm - Duration 30 minutes

Upon arriving at the kindergarten the observer was advised that the scheduled 30 minutes of
3
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

free play time was about to begin. However due to poor weather all 16 children, which included

nine boys and six girls were restricted to playing indoors. In addition to the 16 children, present

during the observation were one kindergarten teacher and two assistants.

As the observer entered the kindergarten room, X was standing by himself in the book

corner. Immediately X noticed the observer, asked them why they were there and tried to begin a

conversation with them. The observer quickly told X that they was only there to watch and then

made their over to take a seat near the Lego table, where no other children were present. This action

of the observer moving towards the Lego table was the antecedent to X’s first observed constructive

play behaviour, as he followed the observer and walked towards the Lego table. Building Lego was

the consequence of X’s actions, however the purpose of his actions appeared to be gaining my

attention. X continued to play with the Lego for five minutes, at a low intensity. This action was

categorized at a low intensity rate as whilst he was building blocks he was making continuous

attempts to converse with the observer and not particularly concentrating on the block building.

In order to try and stop X talking to them, the observer moved over to the block corner. The

observers movements again became the antecedent to X’s constructive play behaviour as he

consequently followed them and walked to the block corner. The building of blocks was the

consequence of X‘s actions, again with the purpose to gain the observers attention. X built blocks at

a low intensity for four minutes and was again attempting to communicate with them.

The kindergarten teacher then announced to the class that the play dough was ready.

This announcement was the antecedent to X’s subsequent constructive play, as he followed the

teacher and sat down at the play dough table. Consequently X started manipulating play dough with

the purpose to construct something. X’s intensity for the four minutes that he was building
4
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

something that appeared to resemble a spaceship was rather high. He was very focused on the

construction and did not communicate with any of the other children present at the play dough

table. Next with no clear antecedent perhaps just the completion of the play dough construction, X

stood up and walked to the large block corner. He consequently continued to build blocks in a

village like structure for 12 minutes. From the onset the intensity of X’s building was high as he

was fully focused on building blocks and did not attempt to communicate with the observer or any

peers. After a total of 12 minutes X stopped and asked the observer what they thought of his

construction, to which the observer replied “great village”. X quickly informed the observer that it

was not a village, but a reproduction of the reality TV game show set wipe out. Surprisingly on a

closer inspection, X’s construction did look like the wipe out set. Whilst X is talking to the observer

the teacher announces that free play is over and it’s time to clean up. The observation concluded

after 35 minutes.

Observation 2 – Friday 10.00 am – Duration 30 minutes

Present during the observation were a total of 18 children, which included eight boys and ten

girls, also present were a kindergarten teacher and two assistants. As the observer entered the

kindergarten room the teacher announced “it’s time to go outside” which was the antecedent to X’s

functional play. X ran outside and did laps of the outdoor area by himself for 1.54 minutes. The

intensity was high, as he was running rather quickly around the playground occasionally bumping

into a peer. This functional play is interrupted when X notices the observers presence, stops running

and walks over to the observer to say hello. After a brief chat with the observer, two peers ask X if

he wants to play at the outdoor Lego table. The peer’s requests are the antecedent to X walking over

to the Lego table to build something with the possible function being either creation or interaction
5
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

with peers. X is building Lego at a low intensity whilst talking to peers for two minutes, but then

the two peers move away and X continues to build at an increased intensity for a further three

minutes.

X then notices five peers on stilts, he walks over picks up a pair of stilts, functional plays by

walking on the stilts with the purpose of possibly joining a group. X walks around in circles on the

stilts for 3.41 minutes, concentrating intently on each step. Without any clear antecedent X gets off

the stilts, walks over to the puzzle table that is occupied by three peers and begins constructing a

wooden puzzle. X constructs two wooden puzzles and is working on his third at high intensity, he

does not communicate with three peers at the same table. The teacher then announces that they will

be going inside soon which leads to X putting down his puzzle and running around the playground

just like he had at the beginning of the outdoor play session. X runs around the play ground for 2

minutes until it is time to go back inside, the observation concludes at 10.28 am.

In terms of validity, the data fails to have good content validity. For example during the first

observation X was not able to go outside, limiting his ability to actively participate in functional

play. Likewise when outside X is unable to go inside, this restricts access to constructive toys such

as play dough and blocks, two items that were typically played with during the first observation.

Hence due to this indoor or outdoor policy, all the domains of play are not fully accessible and

consequently cannot be accurately measured. Moreover the selection of the participant of the study

threatened the internal validity of the observation. X knew the observer and as a result this

appeared to cause a novelty effect, a consequence of this it that X’s cognitive play behaviour may

have changed due to the excitement and interest of their presence. For example during the first

observation X followed the observers movements and consequently played with items that were in
6
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

close proximity to the observer e.g. Lego and blocks. Whilst two observations were conducted in

order to increase reliability, given that the observation was on one subject it has no external validity,

hence no conclusions should be drawn that would hold true for other children in the same age range.

Interview -

A semi structured interview with the mother of X took place in the family home on the

10/09/2010 at 3.00 pm. X's father was absent due to work commitments and X and his sibling were

at day care/kindergarten for the entire duration of the interview. X’s mother described X as a

bubbly, energetic, imaginative and affectionate young boy who likes to laugh at himself. He was

described as someone who has a passion for learning, with a specific interest in books. Particularly

books that include finding things, with favourite titles including Where is Wally and Finding 101

bugs.

The second part of the interview involved X’s mother being read clear operational

definitions and examples (refer to appendice D) of functional play, constructive play, dramatic play

and games with rules. X’s mother was then asked to indicate how frequently X partakes in each

category using the measurement never interested, sometimes interested, usually interested and

always interested. X’s mother reported that X partakes in functional play – always interested,

constructive play – always interested, dramatic play- sometimes interested and games with rules –

always interested. X’s mother further added that she thought that X had little interest in dramatic

play as she herself had not encouraged this play category with X. When asked to further elaborate

X’s mother upon reflection, said she was surprised that she hadn’t encouraged this play category.

Furthermore when discussing the category of games with rules, X’s mother said that X has a
7
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

tendency to make up new rules for games that are so complicated he in turn alienates other children

from participating as they cannot follow the new rules.

When asked to identify the antecedents to X's cognitive play behaviour, X’s mother stated

that any adult who is in the presence of X, broadly including caregivers, family friends or

kindergarten teacher is the main antecedent to his cognitive play behaviour. X’s mother reported

that generally speaking X appears to have a preference for adult interaction rather than interactions

with his sibling or peers. Furthermore X’s mother stated that X will follow an adult in order to

converse with them and then appear to randomly play with something that is in close proximity to

the adult. Elaborating that at times the constructive play behaviour of X completing a puzzle for

example appears to be a secondary objective with the main objective being to converse with an

adult who is standing next to the puzzle. Although X’s mother did state that other antecedents

include requests from peers “such as come play with us” and requests to “play” from his brother are

also antecedents. However the overall antecedent is that of an adult’s movement or adult’s

instructions an example instruction being “Mum is busy at the moment can you please play with

your brother”.

When X’s mother was then asked to report on what she thought were the consequences of

X’s cognitive play behaviour, she answered fixation. Upon elaborating X's mother reported that, if

for example X is playing with Lego he will become so fixated on that constructive task he will

ignore everything around him to the point that it can alienate other children. X’s mother gave a

further example of X becoming fixated on the adult interaction stating that if at a park with the

whole family X will want to functional play e.g. run, with the adult that is present to the exclusion

of his brother and other children in the vicinity. X’s mother was then thanked for her participation
8
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

and the interview concluded after 35 minutes at 3.35 pm.

Throughout the whole interview X’s mother was very interested, attentive and took time to

reflect on questions before answering. However a weakness of the interview data is the absence of

inter rata reliability, it would have been beneficial to collect date from X’s father in order to analyse

inter rata reliability. However the interview data has good face validity as it is using a parent’s

observation of their child’s behaviour which is a rational way to gain such information. Furthermore

the interview data has good content validity as it specifically reflects upon cognitive play behaviour,

the planned subject matter to be observed.

The analysis of the observation data of X, illustrates a strong relationship to that of the

interview data taken from X’s mother. Firstly X’s mother’s observation that X always partakes in

constructive play, is consistent with the observed play behaviour of X, as constructive play was the

predominate area of play observed. This finding is consistent with Johnson and Ershler (1981) who

found that constructive play is the predominate play type of children in preschool environments.

However X not partaking in any games with rules is in contrast to X’s mother’s observation that he

always partakes in this category. However X not partaking in any games with rules is consistent

with Smilansky (1968) who suggests that games with rules is the most complex of the cognitive

play categories with this category not appearing in the play behaviours of children until

approximately seven years of age. However an alternate rational put forward by Johnson and

Ershler (1981) suggests that the individual curriculum’s in kindergartens can influence cognitive

play behaviours. This finding may also be the rational as to why X did not partake in any dramatic

play during both observations. Furthermore whilst there was some functional play observed in the

second observation it was minimal which may be representative of kindergartner’s capacity of

9
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

greater complex cognitive skills (Rubin, et al., 1978).

Furthermore the parental report correlated well with the observation in regards to the

antecedents and consequences of X‘s cognitive play behaviour. X’s mother’s observation that an

adults movements or instructions is the main antecedent to X’s cognitive play behaviour was

repeatedly observed during the free play sessions. For example X followed me on three occasions

and played with toys that were in my proximity, replicating the exact behaviour that his mother had

reported. Furthermore in reference to consequences, X became fixated on tasks just as his mother

had reported. This was illustrated when X constructed the wipe out set, when X was manipulating

play dough and when X was completing puzzles. Overall the interview data from X’s mother had

good predictive validity.

In conclusion as mentioned previously there were threats to validity such as inter rata

reliability and content validity. However one threat yet to be mentioned is the construct validity

threat of experimenter bias. During the limited communication with X and as a result of the

inexperience of the observer, a large error was made. This error occurred when X was trying to

communicate with the observer and the observer replied “I am just here to watch, go play”. Saying

the words ‘go play’ undoubtedly transferred the expectations of the observer onto X. However as

mentioned in the introduction theorists have difficulty in defining the word play, hence it perhaps

would have been enlightening to get X’s definition of the word ‘play‘.

10
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

References

Bryant, D., & Clifford, R., & Peisner, E. (1991). Best Practises For Beginners: Developmental

appropriateness in Kindergarten. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 783-803.

Johnson, J., & Ershler, J. (1981). Developmental Trends in Preschool Play as a function of

Classroom Program and Child Gender. Child Development, 52, 995-1004.

Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 27, 243-269.

Rubin, K. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (POS). Waterloo: University of Waterloo

Rubin, K., & Watson, K., & Jambor, T. (1978). Free-play behaviours in preschool and kindergarten

children. Child Development, 49, 534-536.

Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New

York: Wiley.

Smith, K., & Vollstedt, R. (1985). On defining play: An empirical study of the relationship between

various play criteria. Child Development, 56, 1042 - 1050.

Victoria State Government. (2009). Universal access to early childhood education [Fact sheet].

Retrievedfrohttp://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/earlychildhood/universaovervi

ew.pdf

11
APP3025: Psychological Assessment

Leonie Gasper: I D 1105600

12