Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An in-service model for training the teacher in facilitating the play of the emotionally disturbed child Aderem, Michele 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1991_A8 A33.pdf [ 10.43MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0098664.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098664-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098664-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098664-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098664-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098664-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098664-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

AN IN-SERVICE MODEL FOR TRAINING THE TEACHER IN FACILITATING THE PLAY OF THE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILD by MICHELE ADEREM B.A., The University of Cape Town, 1977 A THESIS SUMBITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Psychology/Special Education)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1991 © Michele Aderem, 1991  In  presenting  degree freely  at  the  available  copying  of  department publication  this  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for reference  this or  thesis  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  or  and study. scholarly her  of I  I further  purposes  gain  agree  shall  requirements that  agree  may be  representatives.  for financial  the  It  is  the  that  for  Library  by  the  understood  that  allowed  without  permission.  Department  of E d u c a t i o n a l  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  3  0  September  Psychology/Special  Columbia  1991  Education  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  not be  an  make  it  extensive  head  of my  copying my  or  written  AB5TRACT Research demonstrates how the poor play skills of emotionally disturbed children hamper their social, emotional and cognitive growth. It also points to adult intervention as being highly effective in fostering the play of the nonplaying child. There is however, little documentation on studies undertaken to training teachers in this field. The rationale for this paper is the need to find ways to maintain children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstream programs given that preschools and daycares are not able to absorb them and limited special needs placements are available. The development of a play training model for teachers can be useful not only to those working with children with high emotional needs, but to all teachers, as well as to parents, who seek more active ways to join with their children's play. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether teachers, through participation in a series of five in-service workshops, could increase specific skills thought to foster the symbolic play of emotionally disturbed children and could decrease the frequency of other skills, considered in the literature to limit the child's play. This study examined the effect of a five-week in-service training on the habitually used play skills of four teachers in a preschool setting. Two instruments were used to measure the effectiveness of the training: a Q-Sort for self-evaluation and independent observation. In the Q-Analysis, subjects were asked to describe their behaviours during "free play" time by rank ordering, (according to a quasi-normal distribution) a comprehensive list of items, each describing one behaviour. The items were gathered from theory and research, as well as informal observations of behaviours used prior to training ii  by the subjects. The item scores for each subject were correlated and factor analyzed. Two independent observers rated the subjects' behaviours pre and post training, according to a checklist of 51 of the Q-5ort items. The postscores were graphed and compared to the pre-scores for each subject. The mean pre-post scores of each item were assessed for significance using a dependent T-Test at the p< .05 level. The Q-5ort results differed from that of the independent observation. The Q-Sort measured an overall significant increase (1 Z-Score or more) in 28.3% of Desirable behaviours and an overall significant decrease in 39.9% of Less Desirable behaviours. The Independent observation measured significant increases (based on the T-Test at the p<.05 level) in 93.1% of Desirable behaviours and significant decreases in 79% of Less Desirable behaviours. It was concluded that, while this study shows promise in training teachers to be facilitators of play, the instrument of measurement needs to be refined and the study extended to larger numbers.  iii  Table of Contents Page ii iv vi vii viii  Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements  Chapter  I Introduction Background and Statement of the Problem The Purpose of the Study Definitions  1 6 7  Chapter  11 Literature Review The Development of Play The Value of Play The Pl8y Life of the Emotionally Disturbed Child The Teacher's Role In-Service Training Implications for Teacher Training-. A. The Personal Attributes Required B. The Technical Skills Required: 1) Observation and Assessment 2) Structuring the Physical Play World 3) The Selection of the Play Materials 4) Scheduling the Play Time 5) Monitoring the Play Oroup Composition 6) Incorporating the Therapeutic Element 7) Fostering the Play Process 8) Techniques of Intervention Hypotheses  Chapter 111 Methodology Subjects The Setting Procedure Measurement: The Instrument Used A. The Q-Sort 1. The Development of the I nstrument 2. The Dimensions to be Measured and the Development of the Q-Sorts 3. Pilot Study 4. Study B. The Independent Observation 1 .The Development of the Instrument 2. Study 3. Reliability Checks The Development of the In-Service Training Model An Outline of the Content of the Workshops  15 20 25 30 34 36 52 55 59 63 64 65 68 71 79  81 82 82 82 83 84 100 101 102 102 103 104 106  Chapter  IV Results Pre/Post Scores Obtained on the Q-Sort Pre/Post Scores Obtained on the Independent Observation  Chapter  V Discussion  115 126 139  iv  £h^ter_yi Conclusion Limitations Suggestions for Future Research  147 150 151  Bibliography  153  Appendices Appendix A Presentation to Teachers and Teacher Consent Form Appendix B Presentation to Parents and Parent Consent Form Appendix C List of Q-Sorts Appendix D Instructions to Respondents Appendix E Dimensions and Items Measured Appendix F Items Classified as Desirable, Less Desirable and Neutral Appendix 6 List of Independent Observation Items Appendix H Independent Observation Instructions Appendix I Independent Observation Checklist Format Appendix J Mean Reliability per Item Appendix K Implementation Form 1 Appendix L Implementation Form 2 Appendix M Pre and Post Q--Scores Appendix N Pre and Post Mean Scores of Subjects - Independent Observation Appendix 0 Overall Mean Pre/Post Scores - Independent Observation Appendix P T-Test Scores  V  161 164 166 170 172 174 176 179 180 181 183 185 187 190 192 194  L i s t of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11  Page  Sex, Age, Qualifications and Experience of the Subjects Intercorrelate Profiles: Pre-Test Intercorrelate Profiles: Post-Test Rotated Factor M8trix: Pre-Test Rotated Factor Matrix: Post-Test Pre/Post Z-Scores of Desirable Behaviours Pre/Post Z-Scores of Less Desirable Behaviours Pre/Post Z-Scores of Neutral Behaviours Pre/Post Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Pre/Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Pre/Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours  vi  81 115 116 117 117 120 123 125 130 134 138  List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Desirable Behaviours for Family 1 Pre/Post Z-Scores of Desirable Behaviours for Family 2 Pre/Post Z-Scores of Less Desirable Behaviours for Family 1 Pre/Post Z-Scores of Less Desirable Behaviours for Family 2 Pre/Posl Z-Scores of Neutral Behaviours for Family 1 Pre/Post Z-Scores of Neutral Behaviours for Family 2 Pre/Post Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Subject A Pre/Post Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Subject B Pre/Post Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Subject C Pre/Post Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Subject D Overall Pre/Post Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Pre/Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Subject A Pre/Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Subject B Pre/Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Subject C Pre/Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Subject D Overall Pre/Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Pre/Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours Subject A Pre/Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours Subject B Pre/Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours Subject C Pre/Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours Subject D Overall Pre/Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours  Vii  118 119 121 122 124 125 127 127 128 128 129 131 132 132 133 133 135 136 136 137 137  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people whose support, advice and the sharing of their knowledge and experience made my thesis not only possible but also rewarding: - My committee, Dr. Marg Csapo and Dr. Glen Dixon. - Dr. John Allan. - Dr. Manfred Kuchenmuller. - Dr. Otto Weininger. - Judith Anastasia, Director of Pacific Coast Family Therapy Training Assn. - The Staff at the PACE Program: Mary Anne Pare, Jane Turner, Mark Stevens and Linda Shekerdemian. - Joshua Berson and Brenda Nichol whose "input", "output" and never ending patience bore this thesis from concept to paper. My extended family whose belief in my endeavours and support on all levels has enabled me to achieve my goals and dreams: - My mother, Minnie, who has always provided me with the love and other neccesary ingredients to play in life. - My "special other mother", Fan and my Uncle Phywie & Aunt Leah who were so important in creating my happy childhood. - My parents-in-law, Harold and Cathy Berson who have extended me so much support. ••- My husband and best friend, Saul without whom this paper and my sanity would not be in existence! - My first playmates, Alan, Lester and Sheryl with whom I learned the joy of make believe... And my daughter Ayla, who ensures I never forget it.  viii  CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  Play, which English & English, (1958, cited in Lieberman, 1977) defined as a "voluntary activity pursued without ulterior purpose and, on the whole with enjoyment or expectation of enjoyment" (p.394), has been widely accepted as being the most natural means by which children learn and an integral part of healthy development. Researchers have offered various definitions to explain play, depending on their theoretical orientation. However, all schools of thought point to the vital impact of symbolic play, in particular, on the child's social and cognitive development. Symbolic play, which is also referred to in the literature as make-believe, imaginative or pretend play, was one of the stages of play development proposed by Piaget, (1945). It represents the level of play the child reaches when thinking becomes abstract and symbols can be used to represent real objects. McCune-Nicolich, (1973, cited in Wagner, 1983) defined symbolic play as "a combination of a real action and an intended fantasy resulting in pretend play with one of the following characteristics: (i) inanimate objects are treated as animate; (ii) daily activities are repeated without the necessary objects; (iii) the child imitates actions of someone else; (iv) activities are only partially completed; (v) one object is substituted for another, and (vi) the behaviour of the child signals the nonliteral quality of the play" (p. 343). On a cognitive level, play is seen as the expression of the consolidation of all learning. Piaget, (1945) considered play to be the vehicle by which the child assimilates experiences to his personal schema of the world. He argued that make-believe play was critical to intellectual development, for the symbolism used in make-believe games helps bridge the gap between concrete experiences and abstract thought. Others (Smilansky, 1968; Sutton-Smith & 1  Sutton-Smith, 1974; Wolfgang, 1977 and Weininger, 1979) pointed to the role of symbolic play in the development of creativity, problem-solving and flexible learning strategies. Singer & Singer, (1977); Garvey, (1977) and Pellegrini & Galda (1984), all stressed the function of play in language development. Pulaski, (1973) and Bettelheim, (1987) asserted that play leads to many school-readiness skills such as Increased attention span and perseverance. Axline, (1969); Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, (1974); Weininger, (1979); Strom, (1981); Landreth, (1982) and Allen, (1982) described the therapeutic impact of play on the child's emotional life. These theorists viewed play as increasing confidence and esteem, as reducing frustration and aggression and as providing the child with a vehicle for interpreting his world and for practicing coping skills. According to Singer & Singer, (1977), make-believe allowed for greater emotional awareness and an outlet for the expression of feelings. Play has been shown to be crucial in the development of many needed social skills such as turn-taking, compromise and co-operation (Similansky, 1968; Singer & Singer, 1977; Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, 1974). These studies demonstrated that make-believe enhances sensitivity to others (through role-playing) and increases flexibility in that fantasizing allows for gratification delay. Many researchers have contended that the play of emotionally disturbed children is exceedingly limited which, recognizing the value of play and especially of symbolic play, greatly impedes their growth. Krown, (1974) presented a comprehensive description of the characteristics of these children's play. These characteristics include being rigid, stereotypical, repetitive and with limited diversity of roles. Furthermore, emotionally disturbed children lack a sense of organization, concentration, perserverance and are generally unable to engage in social play. These findings supported 2  those of Smilansky, 1968; Freyberg, 1973 and Wolfgang, 1977 and were in turn, verified by Christie, (1982) & Johnson et. al., (1987 ). The research points to a number of causal factors including a dysfunctional parent-child relationship, a lack of secure attachment (Smilansky, 1968; Freyberg, 1973 & Krown,1974) and a chaotic, unpredictable and fearful life (Rubin et. al. 1978 and Krown, 1974). Wolfgang, (1977) argued that fear inhibits play; that a repression of feelings leads to a rigidity of ideas and that extreme anxiety hampers concentration. Singer & Singer, (1977) pointed to a deprivation of experiences and stimulation as restricing fantasy. Others demonstrated that poor language models and limited speech handicap the play process (Freyberg, 1973; Garvey, 1977; Wolfgang, 1977 ). Studies show that, in order to play and explore, children need to feel safe and relaxed (Smilansky, 1968; Weinlnger, 1979; Bettelheim, 1987). This sense of safety they maintained, comes from a secure attachment and trust in the adult to provide a predictable life. This predictability allows them to plan and orchestrate a play episode and to integrate information. Furthermore, Singer and Singer, (1977) and Adcock and Segal, (1980) contended that children need stimulating experiences and encouragement of fantasy to build ideas. There is a general agreement that adult presence and intervention is the single most important factor in facilitating the play of the emotionally disturbed child.Various studies have focussed on different aspects of the role of the adult in the child's play. Weininger, (1979) and Pringle, (1980) stressed the teacher's role in creating a safe and predictable environment with a regular schedule. Singer, (1973) and Freyberg, (1973) demonstrated that it is possible to stimulate children's fantasy and make-believe skills through a variety of exercises. Ecological theorists viewed play behaviour as being dependent on the play setting which, they claimed, accounts for the major variance in play 3  behaviour. Thus, the teacher plays an important role in structuring the play space, for this has implications for the use of materials, the variety of roles and the complexity of the play (Frost & Sunderlin, 1983 and Dodge & Frost, 1986 and Christie, 1982). The teacher was found to greatly impact on the play by scheduling the program so as to both allow a predictable sequence of events as well as sufficient time to complete a play episode (Johnson et. al., 1987). Furthermore, by monitoring the group composition, teachers can cultivate play, as the group size and the age and needs of the children were shown to influence play (Parten, 1933; Strom, 1981;Ginnot, 1982). Thus, research points to the teacher playing a vital part in the physical creation of the play scene. However, it also shows that this alone is not sufficient to enhance the emotionally disturbed child's play (Smilansky, 1968; Johnson et. al., 1987; Christie, 1982). Various techniques of teacher intervention in play have been studied (Smilansky, 1968; Johnson et. al., 1987; Cohen & Rae, 1987). These studies showed that, if based on careful observation of the child's play, interventions can be highly effective in increasing children's play skills. It is important to note that in addition to the above mentioned methods of enhancing play, Axline (1969), Singer & Singer (1977) and Bethelheim, (1987) demonstrated that the play process of even non-players can be enhanced merely by a significant adult playing alongside the child. Various benefits of this process were presented by Christie, (1982). These include an enrichment of play, a rapport between adult and child, cognitive and social development and greater persistence in play. (For adults act as buffers against distraction). Freyberg, (1973) and Read, (1980) saw adult modelling of play as leading to higher levels of play and by doing so, the adult creates the needed sense of safety while demonstrating the organization of play ideas. In addition, Strom.  A  (1981) found that adult participation in the child's play leads to a sense of approval of play and consequently reinforces the child's behaviour. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence (Singer & Singer, 1977; Strom, 1981; Bettelheim, 1987) that adults, despite a belief in its value, appear to have lost the spontaneous ability to initiate, engage in and sustain play. Bettelheim argued that this is due to a separation of the adult world from that of the child's. This was supported by Lieberman, (1977) who claimed that adults are not able to be playful. However, Strom (1981) argued that playing is a skill and as such, can be developed through practice. Sponseller, (1974) advocated training parents and teachers to be playful. A review of the literature on play training reveals several studies which seek to increase the child's level of make-believe (Smilansky, 1968; Freyberg, 1973; Singer & Singer, 1977; Saltz & Brodie, 1982; Christie, 1982 and Johnson et. al., 1987). However, there is very little evidence of studies which measure the effect of training on the teacher's own play skills. An extensive review of the literature found but two such studies: Wade (in Frost & Sunderlin, 1983), reported that a teacher training program had significant positive effects on the verbal playground behaviour of teachers. Collier, (in Frost & Sundelin, 1983) in studying the long and short-term practical effects of training eight preschool teachers in techniques for facilitating the "free play" of preschoolers, found significant increases in the teachers' observational techniques as well as their direct involvement in the children's play. Furthermore, despite many guidelines offering teachers knowledge in isolated aspects of the child's play including the therapeutic uses of play on an individual basis (Landreth, 1982; Allen, 1982), one area which appears to have been neglected is the creation of a formal play training model to prepare teachers for positive play involvement with groups of emotionally disturbed  5  children in order to increase the quality and frequency of their play skills (Frost & Sunderlin, 1983). This gap in teacher education is particularly relevant today, given that thirty to thirty five percent of all Special Needs children referred for preschool placement to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing Special Needs Preschool Screening Committee (District Office A63, servicing Vancouver and Richmond) are children with behavioural and emotional needs. Furthermore, integrated programs usually accept no more than one or two such children, which highlights the need of finding ways to help these children integrate into mainstream programs. This has implications for the development of an in-service training model to help teachers, already in the field, gain those skills, believed to be essential in facilitating play and thereby, the overall growth, of emotionally disturbed children. In order to maintain more emotionally disturbed children in regular programs, the focus of this paper is on extending teacher skills in fostering the symbolic play of children in a group setting.  THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to increase the teacher's current play skills, to include those skills needed to foster the symbolic play of emotionally disturbed children and to decrease play behaviors defined as limiting children's play. In this study, the child is generally referred to in the masculine and the teacher in the feminine; neither is meant to be sexist. The majority of children in special preschool programmes are boys while most Early Childhood Educators are women.  6  DEFINITIONS EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED PRESCHOOL CHILDREN: Children (aged 3 to 6), referred to a segregated preschool by social workers, early childhood educators, medical practitioners, public health nurses and other professionals and who exhibit a variety of behaviours, ranging from withdrawal to aggression. HABITUALLY USED PLAYSKILL5: Those play skills which the observers noted during the preliminary observation.  PLAY: A review of the literature reveals how few operational definitions of play are used. This may be due to the all-encompassing nature of the term. For the purposes of this study, play is used as an umbrella term referring to a wide range of behaviours including repetitive muscle movements with or without objects; manipulation of objects to construct something and make-believe transformations which entail altering objects, time, situations and roles.  PLAY-TRAINING MODEL: An all-encompassing five week in-service training model with the objective to increase teacher play behaviours and techniques which, based on research, are necessary to foster the play of the emotionally disturbed child.  PLAYFULNESS: When any or all of the following behaviours occur: skipping, twirling, laughing, singing, vocalizing, voice changing and incorporating unusual elements into play.  7  UNSTRUCTURED OR FREE PLAY TIME: Time periods in the daily program during which no specified activity is planned by the teacher and each child has free choice to engage (or not to engage) in any of the activities in the room.  8  CHAPTER II A LITERATURE REVIEW Research provides a wide range of play definitions, depending on the theoretical orientation of the author. Ellis, (1973) claimed that defining play has "proved a puzzle for centuries" (p. 9). Others advocated for the development of a more discriminating rating instrument to understand the complexities of play and for extensive systematic observation and experimentation in the field (Freyberg, 1973 and Singer, 1973). Levy, (1978) saw the need to develop a scientific method for studying play behaviour in order to eliminate subjectivity. He argued that there is a need to analyse play elements and to provide unbiased information which can be used in making critical judgements. Furthermore, he argued for "an all encompassing theory" to combine microtheories to account for more of the behaviours referred to as play. To follow an interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary study of human play behaviour, he created a paradigm which considers play in a multi-dimensional way. "Early Classical theorists" viewed play as being related to biological and physiological processes. Schiller and later Spencer, (cited in Singer, 1973), expressed the "Surplus Energy" explanation of play. They saw play as representing an outlet for excess energy. This was contested by Singer, (1973) who argued that It is not evident that children will Inevitably play if they have nothing else to do. In addition children play when fatigued so a surplus of energy is not necessary for play (Ellis, 1973). This theory was also criticized by Levy, (1978) who observed that play is not without function nor is all play the result of stored-up energy. Furthermore, Sponseller, (1974) contended that this theory discounts the content of play. The "Recapitulation theory" as presented by Hall, (1906, cited in Singer, 1973) claimed that play, "with its  9  roots in the ritual of the savage, had to be worked through before one could move on to the realities of adult life" (p. 10). In other words, play allows the individual to recapitulate the activities of earlier stages in the cultural development of the race. This theory was contested in that there is no linear progression in our play development that mirrors the development of the species (Ellis, 1973) and that it does not account for contemporary games and future-oriented artifacts of play such as rocketships and submarines (Levy, 1978). Groos, (1901, cited in Singer, 1973) emphasized play as being instinctual and a practice for future functioning. It was questioned by Singer, (1973) as to whether practice is in fact the goal of play or merely a later outcome. Though Sponseller, (1974) argued that none of the Classical theories provide sufficient exploration for the causes of play in all situations. Alderman, (1974, cited in Levy, 1978) claimed that these early theories offer a solid pragmatic base for future theorizing. Play was defined by Singer, (1974) as being "what children do when they are not actively involved in direct biological need-reduction or in carrying out required tasks such as household chores or specified school work" (p. 14). This was supported by Klinger, (1971, quoted by Singer 1973), who saw play behaviour as being not obviously associated with the satisfaction of biological needs or as overcoming immediate obstacles. Garvey, (1977) supported this notion, seeing play as being: (a) pleasureable and enjoyable, (b) with no extrinsic goal, (c) spontaneous and voluntary and (d) as involving the active engagement on the part of the player. "The Psychoanalytic school" claimed that, when used as a therapeutic tool, not all play is pleasurable. Anxiety and distress are key elements in the play of the emotionally deprived child's play. Freud, (1938, cited in Ellis, 1973), saw play as an attempt, through repetition, to cope with overwhelming !0  anxiety. This view was later broadened by Erikson, (1963) to include mastery of reality and the creation of "model situations." These views stress the importance of differentiating between the quality of playfulness and the behaviour of play in that playfulness is associated with "joy, humour and lightheartedness" (Lieberman, 1977). Freud, (1938) claimed that play is often not a voluntary action but is compelled or repressed by unconscious forces. He saw play as representing an attempt to satisfy drives or to resolve conflicts in the absence of a realistic opportunity to do so. The stimulus of play was thus drive reduction. Arguments against this theory include the contention that it ignores play which is not presumed to be motivated by the need to eliminate the products of unpleasant experiences, (Ellis, 1973) and that stressed that Psychoanalytic themes lack empirical support and were derived from work with emotionally disturbed individuals (Levy, 1978). The "Developmental theory" of Piaget, (1945) viewed cognitive development as involving the two processes of Accommodation and Assimilation. Accommodation, as reflected mainly in mastery play, represents an attempt to imitate and interact physically with the environment whereas Assimilation represents an attempt to integrate information into existing cognitive schemata. According to Singer, (1973) symbolic play is more closely associated with this later process. In imaginative play, the child attempts to organize his experiences by using his available cognitive and motor capacities to the fullest. "Thus, play is caused by the growth of the child's intellect and is conditioned by it" (Levy, 1978, p. 79). Play and imitation were viewed by Piaget, (1945) as critical to the development of the child's intelligence. El'Konin, (in Herron and Sutton - Smith, 1971), argued that play is not a substitute for mature thought but a step towards the development of internal activity. However, Ellis, (1973) contended that this theory does not account for play when and if the intellect ceases to develop. 11  The "Cognitivists" and "Psychoanalysts" thus saw play as an experience, a process or an attitude which occurs within the player himself/herself. However, any internal process makes for a difficulty in obtaining an operational definition. Two threads were identified by Ellis, (1973) as running through the various definitions of modern theories. Mostly these two are intertwined, with one viewing play in terms of the motive of play and the other in terms of its attributes. However, he argued that to formulate a motive is often difficult as its observation is often not clear. He cited various definitions which see the sole motivation of play as being the reward inherent immediately in the activity itself, thus leading to the general definition that "play is the behaviour that is intrinsically motivated." He categorized modern theories as "those which view play as a function of competence motivation and those which view play as an arousal seeking device" (In Sponseller, 1974, p. 19). White, (1979) claimed that people receive satisfaction from developing competencies, independent of whether extrinsic rewards are available. Play enables the child to do so. Theorists who supported play to be an arousal seeking device, argued that play enables the child to achieve a balance of the amount of stimulation available to him. Ellis, (1973) claimed that, to consider the content or attitudes of play as in the "Ethological approach," demands extensive observation. Further, he argued, that play is a multitude of behaviours and not as has been assumed that "there is a definable subset of behaviours which is play and that this subset can be defined in terms of its common and discriminating elements" (p. 11). He felt that too many sub-behaviours are being placed in one category and proposed that play behaviours be categorized as the investigation, exploration and manipulation of the physical, social and cognitive environments. In his attempt, along with other "Behaviourists," in order to define and narrow down play definitions to specific, observable behaviours, he focussed on 12  the behavioural interaction between the player and the play material (Ellis, 1973). Others, such as Bruehler, (1930's, cited in Ellis, 1973) focussed on the sensory stimulation provided by materials as the motivation for play. These theorists saw the motivation for play not as being the need for pleasure or an outlet for playfulness or as a reduction of tensions but as a need to seek stimulation. Berlyne, (1969, cited in Ellis, 1973), argued that play should not be treated as a special type of behaviour but should be viewed within the context of a Learning Theory model. This looked at play as being caused by the normal process that produce learning. It assumed that the child will act to increase the probability of pleasant effects and to decrease negative effects and that the environment selects and energizes the play behaviour. However, this did not account for behaviour In situations where there are no apparent consequences; nor did it account for the original contributions made by an individual's genetic inheritance (Ellis, 1973). Levy, (1978) argued that, the Ecological view that play behaviour is dependent on the setting, fails to incorporate the "unique life space of the human organism as seen In the variability in personality dispositions and preceding environmental stimuli" (p. 133). He proposed a framework for interpreting the Ecological elements of the play setting within an interaction framework of human play behaviour. Singer, (1973), cited various theories In distinguishing between exploratory behaviours and play. These included those who claimed that exploration preceeded play (Piaget, 1945); those who saw the difference in terms of a passivity-activity dimension, with play being the more vigorous activity (Weller, 1961, cited in Singer, 1973) and those who viewed most of play, though not all, as being exploratory (Berlyne, 1969, cited in Singer 1973). Ellis, (1973) claimed behaviour to be play when "the subject shows free emission of responses such that the choice of response and rate of emission are determined solely by the organism" (p. 188). Some theorists considered 13  exploratory behaviour as being elicited by certain environmental changes and play, on the other hand, as occurring only in a familiar setting (Lieberman, 1977). Playfulness, she claimed acts as "the catalyst" between the two by "triggering the reassembling of known factors into new combinations" (Lieberman, 1977, p. 105). Both, play and exploration have, however, been described as self-motivated activities whose rewards lie in the gratifications that they bring directly to the participants. Another issue which is not always clearly defined in literature is the distinction between play and non-play. Ellis, (1973) argued that behaviours should be defined not as play but as playfulness. Sponseller, (1974) saw this criteria for "play" or "not play" as being Inferred from the sources of satisfaction with play being an activity, done for its own sake and work being done for external reward. However, she counteracted this by recognizing that work may be playful and children's play may be very serious. Thus, she claimed there should be no black and white distinction. As they argued that no single hypothesis can be formulated to explain all forms of play, Herron and Sutton-Smith, (1971) advocated operational definitions for various functions of play such as the socialization function. In narrowing the concept of play, numerous definitions have been offered for symbolic play. It was viewed by Singer, (1973) as being when the child uses imagery to create novel objects out of existing props or to recall absent people and by Fein, (1975) as being behaviour in an "as if" mode. Guilford, (1967, cited in Singer, 1973) claimed that behaviour encompasses both convergent and divergent processes. In symbolic play the divergent process is dominant, allowing for a variety of responses. Furthermore, in make-believe, the child is freer from the conventions and constraints of normal social behaviour. This was seen by Singer, (1973) as what separated symbolic play from games with rules. 14  "Cognitive-Developmental theorists" such as Vygotsky, (cited in Johnson, 1987) viewed pretend play as reflecting the symbolic maturity of the child. He saw the behavioural definition of play as being when the child, despite knowing that it be make-believe, designates ordinary things by unusual names and his ordinary actions by unusual designations In contrast to Piaget, (1945), Sutton-Smith, (1974) viewed play as continuing throughout life and becoming increasingly internalized.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLAY The developmental levels of play correspond directly to the child's physical, cognitive, social and emotional maturation. According to Weininger, (1979) all the aspects of a child's development are integrated and function in a reciprocal fashion. Various play sequences are offered in the research, each being interconnected. Sutton-Smith, (in Strom, 1981), saw the relationship between the different levels of play as being additive. Children may need to move back and forth between levels as they consolidate their learning or as their emotional state dictates. Basic to the child's sequential play progress is a safe environment with a solid attachment to a significant primary figure which provides him with the security and encouragement for exploration. Different terms are used to describe these play levels. The more commonly used being sensori-motor (or functional), symbolic or dramatic, constructive and games with rules (Piaget, 1945). Each of these levels may take the social form of solitary, parallel or co-operative play (Parten, 1933), mainly dependent on the child's social maturation but also on his emotions at any given moment, on his individual preferred style of play and on various  15  environmental circumstances such as group size and the space and materials available. Based on the levels of social play development put forth by Parten, (1933), the child progresses along the following stages: a) Solitary Play which is egocentric, with the child playing alone with no reference to others. b) Parallel Play whereby the child plays alongside other children and though he may engage in similar pursuits, has no interaction with them. c) Associative Play whereby the child plays with others in similar if not identical activity. Play is loosely organized around a common activity, shared interest and materials. d) Co-operative Play which includes full interaction between children as seen in the exchange of feelings, the assignment of roles and a sense of group belonging. Furthermore, Parten, (1933) added two levels of non-playing behaviour. These being that of OnlooKing (the child observes the play of others but doesn't enter it) and Unoccupied (which refers to undirected and passive behaviour). Sensori-motor play is generally considered as the earliest form of play, (Butler et. al. 1978). It appears in infancy and is typically prominent until about age two. On a social level, it is generally solitary or parallel. Early sensori-motor play is seen in simple muscular activities caused by imitation, repetition and exploration particularly of the infant's own body. The baby makes sounds and plays at repeating and imitating these. Imitative play develops with the interaction between parent and child which takes the form of circular imitation, particularly through face contact (Singer & Singer, 1977). This imitative parent-child play helps the child learn to recognize play signals and to develop a sense of sequence and predictability. Weininger, (1979) found that by playfully touching the baby, the parent contributes to the child's 16  perception of himself. The parent, he argued, can enrich this level of play by providing a wide range of kinesthetic, tactile, visual and auditory experiences, all adjusted to the baby's sense of timing and temperament. Exploration is initially through the mouth, later through the random movement of the hands and feet. This form of play allows the child much practice in experiences of his immediate environment and hence leads to a sense of mastery as he discovers his impact on the world (Weininger, 1979). This form of play Is also referred to as practice play for, "children engage in repetitious actions as if they had their own ends without reference to any resulting recognizable outcome," (Butler et. al. 1978, p. 28). Strom, (1981) argued that reinforcement of the child's exploration will intensify his drive to seek new experiences. This play exploration and experimentation lays the seeds for future play ideas. From sensori-motor play the child moves to symbolic play. Krown, (1974) claimed that once autonomy and basic skills are sufficient to separate from mother, the child can put his energies into developing more complex time and space organizations and greater problem solving and creative abilities. The ability to be able to create his own symbols is dependent on his capacity for the retention of permanent images of familiar objects. The developmental causes of pretending reflects the child's growing capacity to create symbols which are increasingly independent of external stimulation. Thus, his ability to think symbolically allows for imaginative play. However, symbolic play in turn fosters his abstract thought. Wolfgang, (1977) claimed that the preschooler functions on a pre-operational level and turns objects into representational symbols with limited concept of time, space and causality. These abilities develop as the child matures. Singer, (1973) contended that the child seeks to imitate adults and to assimilate new experiences into existing schema by transforming external information into a miniaturized private representational system. Effective internal representation depends on practice. Between ages 17  three and five his physical abilities enable him to manage his world and to a greater or lesser extent, to create in play images he has in his mind. Pellegrini, (1985) offered an outline of the development of symbolic play. It emerges around 18-24 months with the emergence of representational abilities, peaks at five to six years and then declines. This development entails: (i) Decontextualized Behaviour: whereby children frame an everyday activity in a make-believe context such as pretending to eat when it is not actually meal time; (ii) Object Substitutions: Fein, (1975) claimed that children select objects to represent others based on the features shared by the two whilst overlooking the differences. These substitutions become more abstract as play becomes more decontextualized. Between two to three years of age, the child's fantasy is real to him and he requires realistic props to facilitate play (Hartley, 1963). By four years, children enact symbolic Play themes without props. Garvey, (1977) and Pelligrini, (1985) claimed that children use explicit oral language to define symbolic object transformations; (iii) Role Playing :with children representing the actions and language of physically absent characters. This play depends largely on their understanding of their world. Role playing allows them to experiment with various social realities and to symbolically reproduces the adult's world. Four different types of roles were identified by Garvey and Berndt, (in Johnson et. al., 1987). These are: functional roles which are triggered by objects such as a stethoscope; relational roles (referring to family members); character (such as firefighter) or fictional (such as Snow White) roles and peripheral roles which relate to friends and are talked about, but not enacted upon. The roles chosen are in keeping with the themes of their play and change as their cognitive levels develop. Initially they centre around the familiar and routine and move to include, as their world widens, super heroes and fictional characters.  18  Weininger, (1979) argued that the general motifs in dramatic play are a need for protection and power. Solitary play allows the child control. As the child develops socially and emotionally, other children become involved in play and it develops to sociodramatic play which represents the highest level of symbolic or dramatic play. Fantasy is an essential element of symbolic play. Leach, (1988) argued that the preschool child is usually being someone else and living in the "as if." Singer, (1973) considered fantasy to be a personality characteristic that develops with age and becomes part of one's cognitive life-style. In measuring the Imaginative Play Predisposition of preschoolers, he found that three and four year olds are still in a period of growth. Therefore, the teacher is a critical factor in facilitating this capacity in the child. Constructive play occurs when the child chooses to use construction (either through blocks, manipulative toys or craft materials) to produce or reproduce his ideas. At five, he can create complex block structures; his fine and gross motor skills are developed and he is much more independent and social. As he matures, constructive play becomes more predominant and complex (Read, 1980). Once children learn, through socio-dramatic play, to take turns and follow certain commonly agreed-upon rules, they are able to play simple games with rules. These games each represent a "microcosmic social structure," (Strom, 1981); and allow the children to create their own rules, and allow for decision-making (Piaget, 1945). Games may be games of chance (board games), of strategy (such as chess) or to test physical skills. This form of play is the more typical pattern of the seven to twelve year old, though dramatic and socio-dramatic play continue to be important. The focus on rules helps children understand the concepts of social agreements and contracts.  19  The different play skills and levels are interwoven. The imitative qualities of early parent-child play lay the seeds for later pretend and makebelieve play and weave like a thread throughout the child's play life. Exploration, primarily in a sensori-motor manner, enriches the child and allows for an understanding and mastery of his world, a prerequisite to constructive and symbolic (be it solitary, parallel or socio-dramatic) play. Rules developed in socio-dramatic play enable the child to later engage in games with rules. At different stages of maturity, these skills may emerge in varying degrees of frequency. However, elements of each are continuously found in each level. Each capacity feeds off and into the other. Furthermore, children have different styles of preferred play. Thus, the teacher needs to provide the structure and materials to encourage all capacities simultaneously. THE VALUE OF PLAY An overall perspective on the importance of play in the child's growth is presented to illustrate the gap caused by limited play skills and to highlight the need for teacher intervention. Play and its impact on child development have been abundantly researched with most studies pointing to the positive effect of play. However, Levy, (1978), cautioned that play behaviour may have functional and dysfuctional consequences. Cratty, (1975, cited in Levy, 1978), stressed the need to intervene to assure positive consequences. On a cognitive level, Vygotsky, ( cited in Johnson et. al., 1987), believed play to have a direct role in cognition, in that the use of symbols in pretend play leads to the development of abstract thinking. Weininger, (1979), pointed out that play allows for experimentation, innovation and design. This supported the notion that play greatly enhances creativity by extending the child's repertoire of responses to be used in problem-solving (5utton-5mith & Sutton20  Smith, 1974). The child's cognitive growth was seen by Wolfgang, (1977) not being the result of direct teaching but an interrelated process that allows for problem-solving through a series of imagined solutions. Smilansky, (1968) referred to the need for the ability to make-believe to project oneself into an "as if" situation in many school subjects such as historical visualizations. Play encourages the development of many scientific and mathematical concepts through the manipulation of ideas and mental images in a meaningful way (Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, 1974; Weininger, 1979). Weininger, (1979) saw play as involving judgemental patterns (explaining, criticizing), discriminative patterns (defining and classifying) and creative patterns. By engaging in socio-dramatic play, children gain valuable language experience as play episodes are developed, maintained and expanded through language (Garvey, 1977). She found that in early games and in structured interchanges children learn to signal and to recognize signals and expectancies. In these encounters they master the idea of the "privilege of occurrence," so central to grammer. According to Pellegrini and Galda, (1984), narrative language and story comprehension are developed by the linguistic transformation of roles, props and interactions which enable the children to reconstruct events and sequence stories. This concept of verbal enrichment through play was supported by Smilansky, (1968) who found that this learning transfers to other cognitive tasks. The richer the fantasy play of the child, the greater his verbal communication and complexity of sentence usage, labelling, attention span, spontaneity and originality (Freyberg, 1973). Pulaski, (1973) found that fantasy increases the attention span of hyperactive children for, by engaging in make-believe, they learn to concentrate on their thoughts. She saw fantasy as being motivating and hence a vehicle for developing cognitive and creative skills. She found that children with greater fantasy ability, scored higher on organization, variety, their 21  distance from real life situations and the concentration of subjects. They were more able to be flexible in their ability to switch to another activity when interested. Conversely, children low in fantasy were found to be less creative, less flexible in their thinking and concentration and more concrete. Play was seen as critical in the teaching of many important habits for intellectual growth, such as perseverence (Bettelheim, 1987). He felt that the more a child could fully enjoy fantasy life, the more he could benefit from games later. Sponseller, (1974), pointed out that as, society is so rapidly changing, education needs to be based on the development of flexible learning strategies. Play, she argued, is a vehicle well suited for the development of learning such strategies. The child acquires physical knowledge through sensori-motor play and social knowledge through socio-dramatic play (Wolfgang, 1977). Play gives a child a sense of himself physically and offers a practice ground for many new competencies as well as an outlet for surplus energy and tension. Play, particularly fantasy play, is essential to the emotional well-being of the child. Singer, (1973); Biblow, (1973) and Ginnot, (1982), saw a rich fantasy life as leading to ego control and to an ability to tolerate delay and to endure frustration. By the child setting his own realistic goals in play, without failure or competition, his ego is further strengthened. As play is intrinsically motivated, Strom, (1981) claimed that it leads to a sense of personal accomplishment. Confidence and esteem are further increased by the child gaining a sense of mastery of his world through creating model situations in play. Make-believe play and its role reversals empowers the child by fostering his sense of control and autonomy for in play, the child can "own the whole world" (Nicolaysen in Strom, 1981). Ginnot, (1982) argued that, the passive or victimized child can play a powerful real or imagined figure. 22  Singer & Singer, (1977) believed make-believe to lead to happier children who are able to express their emotions and who have a greater sense of self awareness and control over their environment. It is rare, they argued, that children so enjoy make-believe that they sink totally into fantasy. In fact both Singer & Singer, (1977) and Krown, (1974) contended that more imaginative children deal with anxiety more readily and are less likely to have a breakdown. They considered make-believe as teaching the child to distinguish fantasy from reality for example by learning rules. The "Psychoanalytic school," believed that play has a cathartic effect allowing the child to work out inner conflicts. The "Ego-Psychologists" broadened the "Psychoanalytic" view by incorporating the adaptive quality of play. They considered the child's repetitive actions to be an attempt to assimilate new information and not to deal with conflict. Play therapists (such as Jung, 1964 and Axline, 1982), saw play as a valuable tool of assessment and a vehicle for reparation. They viewed play as an enactment of the child's fantasy and the means for tapping his anxieties, fears, confusions and traumatic experiences. Erikson, (1963) stressed the expressive value of play and the way in which it often reflects the child's immediate outer and inner world. Fantasy may bridge the gap for the child between the real and desired worlds (Strom, 1981). Landreth, (1982) asserted that play allows the child with special difficulties to rebuild relationships and a damaged self image and to unfreeze fixated development. Furthermore he contended that, through play the child can repeat life experiences over and over again, thus gaining an understanding of them in order to assimilate these into his broader experiences. In this way, play allows the child to interpret his world and his place in it by enabling him to break complex experiences into manageable pieces, thereby reducing the associated anxiety. By experimenting with unresolved situations through re23  experiencing these in small segments, the associated negative emotions are slowly assimilated. Play, he claimed, allows the child to practice coping skills and to be aware of feelings. Socio-dramatic play was found to enhance social skills such as cooperation, turn-taking and social language (Smilansky, 1968). This turn-taking teaches children flexibility in social situations and greater self control (Singer & Singer, 1977). By enacting social roles, children must mentally put themselves in another's place, thereby developing sensitivity and empathy (Singer & Singer, 1977). They stressed that one of the values of being human is our ability for imagery which allows us to "create a script" by changing time and space relations, replaying past events and anticipating future ones. They saw the ability to visualize as allowing the child to picture another and to "feel his feelings," thus leading to empathy. Garvey, (1977) argued that the child thus practices ways of relating and begins to incorporate the ideas of others for, in order to sustain play, consensus about the rules and goals of the play episode needs to be reached. She further claimed that through the games children create, with their rules and expectancies, the child is able to distinguish between make-believe and real. These rules of play sensitize the child to the rules of society. Since play reflects the child's world, it enables him to learn the rules of his culture. At the same time however, play should also allow the child freedom from rules, realities and restrictions. He learns about himself in relation to his world (Weininger, 1979). Sutton-Smith, (1974) saw imitation of the adult as being the way by which the child tries to weave himself into the adult world. Play allows for practice through the assembling and re-assembling of behavioral sequences. Thus, it helps the child face complex realities. Repetition leads to familiarity and assimilation and hence to adjustment. Through the drama of play, the child develops a concept of self as different from, but related to others and hence a sense of self-identity. He 24  learns conflict resolution, values, humour, the concepts of sharing and dominance and the approval of imagination (Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, 1974). Lehane, (1979) contended that play greatly enhances the child's creativity for it is the vehicle of improvisation and deals with possibilities and not actualities. This was supported by Lieberman, (1977) who found that more playful children were more creative and more able to problem solve and consider the "as if." She claimed that playfulness leads to exploratory behaviour which enhances a sense of originality, which in turn fosters fantasy. Play allows the child to make his own imprint on society and, thus, fosters his uniqueness. Play is the means by which the child is able to develop in an integrated and active way. It leads to a greater ability to enjoy life, to a greater capacity for flexibility and imagination, and to greater physical and strategic competence. By being self directed and pleasureable, it offers the child intrinsic motivation. Strom, (1981) contended that, the play process itself is the child's reward; there is no need for a conclusion or the accomplishment of a particular goal. Goals in play change as the activity proceeds. If play becomes goal-oriented he argues, exploration of possibilities is diminished. Teachers need to learn ways of fostering this process. By involving the child's resources, play not only offers a sound basis for school preparation but, in fact, prepares the child on all levels for a richer and more satisfying life. THE PLAY LIFE OF THE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILD It is critical to bear in mind that within the broad definition of "emotionally disturbed," great variations exist. Csapo, (1981) raised various limitations about doing controlled research using such a generic term. She also  25  cautioned as to the dangers of labelling and the consequent risk of the selffulfilling prophecy and stigmatization. Before considering the play of emotionally disturbed children, it is important to look at some of the causal factors which impact on their skills and behaviours. Often, due to deprived or fearful early experiences, disturbed children may have had little opportunity of encouragement for exploration. Due to dysfunctional parent-child interaction, they may have missed out on many of the earlier play levels such as imitation and body games (Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, 1974). Freyberg, (1973) claimed that parents' attitudes towards pretending and the quality of their involvement were the most important factor in enhancing imagination. Others stressed the importance of early parent-child games in the development of make-believe (Singer & Singer, 1977; Bettelheim, 1987). For example, the game of peek-a-boo teaches the child object constancy and hence a trust in the mother, which allows for the development of independence. Krown, (1974) spoke of the impact of early gratifying relations and the parents' view of the child on the child's sense of self value, so essential to the ability to play. She also considered the parental attitude to issues such as independence-dependence and the child's self control as critical in fostering his curiosity. Early experiences of talking, listening and being listened to are critical to both language and ego development. The richness of the language used at home, the choice of play things and the concept of a regular schedule were also seen by Krown, (1974), as vital to his play potential. A lack of experiences, she claimed, restricted play. She found that some parents from low socio-economic conditions, did not feel they could teach their children and be a bridge to the outside world. She viewed regular scheduling as creating an internal organization and systematic thinking which in turn helps the child with planning and orchestrating a play episode.  Clearly, children who have been deprived of the above will be hampered in their play ability. Less socio-dramatic play was found with children from low socio-economic backgrounds, (Smilansky, 1968 and Rubin et. al., 1978), as well as those with emotional difficulties who suffer from, what Erikson, (1963) termed "play disruption." These children were seen as being unable to connect their life experiences due to the lack of basic security which serves as an anchor point and as being unable to integrate information. As sociodramatic play demands of a child to combine these scattered experiences, Smilansky, (1968) decided to use it as the vehicle for teaching the child to utilize his scattered ideas, knowledge and vocabulary in an imaginative combination as well as to develop in him the ability of positive social interaction. The cycle of extreme poverty was referred to by Strom, (1980 as preventing opportunity or "spielraum" for solitary play and hence for building "inner resources." Krown, (1974) found that within large families, there was often little concern for the child's individuality. Basic to make-believe play, is the ability to fantasize. The development of this ability was considered by Singer, (1973) as being directly related to experience and exploration, to parental interest and acceptance of imagination, to the availability of adults for identification and to the opportunity for practice of fantasy by being alone. Wolfgang, (1977) referred to poor attachment as leading to a basic insecurity and mistrust and an overwhelming anxiety. This prevents the sense of relaxation, so needed to play. Fear and stress can inhibit the child's desire to play. Children who live with violence become impulsive for their world is unpredictable (Krown, 1974). Furthermore, as play reflects the child's private inner and outer reality, much of the emotionally troubled child's play patterns are disturbed and chaotic, often reflecting themes of powerlessness and abandonment. This was supported by Freyberg, (1973) who found that these 27  children generally exhibited less energy for play and less spontaneous manipulation of equipment and less absorption in the play episode. These children may repress their feelings so deeply to an unconscious level that they are totally rigid. They are too suspicious and afraid to engage in play and to experience the release of all these pent-up feelings. Wolfgang, (1977) argued that, group situations, strange people and places may be too threatening and often relief and a sense of control of their world is found in isolation. They are fearful of other children and lacking the necessary social knowledge for interaction (Strom, 1981). He argued that "co-operation implies sharing power" and "...children who sense powerlessness cannot co-operate, they can only acquiesce." (p. 50). Wolfgang, (1977) looked at a continuum of emotionally-disturbed children, from the passive, whom he characterized as being cut off from the world, to the aggressive, who was flooded by tension and anxiety and in a constant state of hyper-alertness and great motor activity. Such a child may be hypersensitive, very rigid and needing, but being afraid of, physical affection. Due to possible abuse or, to a lack of demonstrative physical affection, these children have little body awareness and a wide boundary around themselves. Wolfgang, (1977) characterized the play of the abused child as being constricted, with the child being constantly aware of danger. The abused child may hide to play or may require adult permission to play. His play is a vehicle to master fears of pain and separation. He displays violence with toys that represent people or loved objects and displays inappropriate knowledge of sexual issues in play. His overall development may lag and hence his play may be less complex than what is age appropriate. Krown, (1974) like Wolfgang, (1977) considered a continuum, ranging from the rejecting child, who hates to be touched, to the extremely clingy one. Each of these continuums are  28  important for the teacher to recognize for the characteristics of each group of children greatly hamper their play ability. Emotionally disturbed children often function at a younger emotional developmental stage than their chronological years. They may be unable to delay gratification and are easily frustrated. Krown, (1974) talked of the link between symbolic thinking and the ability to delay gratification and to inhibit impulsive behaviour. Their ability to express emotions may be blocked or, due to a fragile ego, they may erupt in anger or disintegrate into tears. It was found by both Freyberg, (1973) and Pulaski, (1974) that the younger the child, the more vulnerable he is to play disturbances. Krown, (1974) saw the non-playing child, in addition to the abovementioned characteristics, as lacking an order and clarity in his life, showing repetitive and stereotype play; being afraid to tackle new tasks; being difficult to stimulate and being withdrawn, suspicious and generally unresponsive. These children do not make friends easily and are often not assertive. Due to a deprivation of materials they have difficulty with turn-taking. They are not fascinated by the world around them, don't offer new suggestions or look for the "whys and hows" and hence do not have many ideas for the establishment or elaboration of play. They tend to merely touch materials without engaging in play. Due to overwhelming emotions, they may have poor concentration skills and tend to flit aimlessly and impulsively in play. They are unable to play socially symbolic play or, as she called it, "the game of life." Less advantaged children were reported by Smilansky, (1968) as showing less diversity and depth of roles, had a greater need for real objects and for objects in general and were more rigid in their use. Unlike the "advantaged" child who could perceive a role in terms of a conceptualized theme of adult behaviour, the "disadvantaged" child perceived a role in terms of certain actions. The "disadvantaged" group had issues of aggression or power in 29  play and could accept no deviant behaviour due to their limited conception of roles. Correspondingly their play offered no dramatic text, planning or direction and was generally disjointed. The limited speech of emotionally disturbed children and hence their limited play ability, are referred to by Smilansky, (1968); Freyberg, (1973); Wolfgang, (1977) and Krown, (1974). Weininger, (1979) too stressed how little children with emotional disturbances communicate. The teacher needs skills to enable the child to fully benefit from the emotional healing and cognitive, physical and social developmental potential of play. THE TEACHER'S ROLE Research has been presented to support the premises that play is invaluable to the child's development and that the emotionally disturbed child's play skills are extremely limited, thereby impeding his development. Most researchers agree that with the proper personal and professional skills, the adult can foster the child's play. It is thus clear that teachers of such children have an important role to play. This section examines the overall principles of the teacher's multifaceted role in facilitating play and the needed qualities and skills for executing it. This will be followed by a more detailed research-based examination as to why each of these skills are important, as well as how they may be fostered. This literature review provides the basis for the content of the in-service teacher-training model. Primary to the entire play process is the teacher's attitude to the child and her belief in the value of play (Weininger, 1979). The most critical role of the teacher in setting and sustaining the play scene is to create a safe, trusting environment and a meaningful teacher-child 30  relationship (Wolfgang, 1977; Weininger, 1979; Pringle, 1980). Once the child feels valued, accepted and protected, his anxieties may diminish and he may relax sufficiently so as to engage in play. This relationship both provides the child with the security to play and offers him a protective space to deal with feelings which arise in play. Axline, (1982) contended that if the teacher is able to accept and reflect underlying feelings as expressed in the child's play, she can help him gain an understanding of the emotional precesses which so overwhelm him. Such a meaningful relationship, she claimed, is especially important to the child who has a poor attachment history. A prerequisite to play is a communication and closeness. Read & Patterson, (1980) emphasized that the young child learns best through relationships. The teacher needs to feel comfortable enough so as to be able to allow for both needed physical contact with the child as well as satisfying his dependancy needs (Weininger, 1979). The teacher who is playful, has a wonder of life and who is creative, resourceful and spontaneous can allow for and appreciate the same in the child (Lieberman, 1977). If she is able to engage in fantasy, she can encourage this in the child. A sense of playfulness will allow her to present things in an enthusiastic, exciting, fun-filled, and dramatic way, and to be able to enter the child's world and play alongside him with genuine enjoyment and less inhibition and fear of failure (Lieberman, 1977). Playfulness will also help her develop a "language of play" thus enabling her to stay on a symbolic level (Singer & Singer, 1977). Balanced with her ability to be playful, the teacher needs to be able to assess, interpret and develop hypotheses which guide any future intervention in the child's play. Thus, the teacher requires proper techniques for observation and assessment. Weininger, (1979) argued that she needs to be an "interactionist" for she needs a sound knowledge of child development; the progression of general play  31  levels as well as specific knowledge regarding the individual child, including his learning patterns. This picture of the child should be broad and based on a historical and systemic perspective. The personal "baggage" which the child carries both affects his play and is reflected by it. Therefore by having as full a picture of the child as possible and by constantly building on this, the teacher can monitor, facilitate or redirect as she judges most therapeutic at the time. This knowledge allows her to help the child set realistic goals and to anticipate possible stresses. Krown, (1974) argued that the teacher needs to allow for a movement back and forth between play levels. By recognizing his uniqueness, the teacher can allow for his preferred style of learning and play and to structure or unstructure accordingly. Once the emotional climate is established, it is her role to create an orderly, yet inviting and aesthically appealing playroom which is both calm and stimulating (Frost & Sunderlin, 1983). Bearing in mind how chaotic these . children's lives can be, this balance of stimulation with order and predictability is crucial to the play process (Krown, 1974). Singer & Singer, (1977) saw play and the imaginative capacity as being enhanced by close relations with adults, privacy and the opportunity to experience a wide variety of toys and materials. The teacher's role is critical in "setting the stage" for play. This includes the room structure, the choice of materials and development of what Strom, (1981) calls, "the child's sense of self" including his creative and imaginative skills. The teacher needs to broaden the child's horizons for the richer his life, the richer will be his play. She needs to allow for the child's exploration and self discovery. The deprived child is often robbed of opportunities for exploration and stimulation, including visual exploration, physical manipulation of objects and exploration through his own body (Krown, 1974). She advocated that the teacher's role is to encourage  32  direct encounter with objects, which leads to mastery and hence to esteem and impulse control. The teacher is assigned the responsibility of scheduling the child's time. By sequencing activities and organizing play, the teacher helps develop self control (Krown, 1974). By placing appropriate limits, the teacher further provides the child with needed structure. Within the limits, freedom to be adventurous and playful needs to be encouraged (Krown, 1974). Once the teacher has set the scene she observes the child and, following his lead and interests, enhances the play episode (Cohen & Rae, 1987; Johnson et. al., 1987). Her involvement may be viewed on a continuum from being merely observational to being a full play partner. In order to become a play partner, the teacher needs to overcome her embarassment, to respect the child's creative strength and to be willing to relinquish some of her own power (Strom, 1981). Christie, (1982) contended that the teacher's role is to facilitate and broaden the play process - be it solitary or a group play experience through a variety of techniques. These techniques will allow her to aid the children in planning and developing rules and goals to sustain play whilst not overpowering them. By providing guided opportunities for interaction, she can encourage social skills. The child who is taught how to play in make-believe is more creative (Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, 1974). Thus, the teacher needs to encourage his "magical thinking" - his sense of mystery and wonder and to allow for daydreaming. This may be achieved for example, through the telling of stories, legends, myths and fairy tales. Singer & Singer, (1977) cautioned that while avoiding sex role stereotyping, the teacher needs to allow for the enactment of mythology such as princesses and knights. By stimulating the child's fantasy, creativity and spontaneity, she enhances his personal resourcefulness and  33  consequently, his make-believe play which leads to greater overall development. In conclusion, by developing a wide range of skills, teachers can help emotionally disturbed children overcome many of the obstacles which block their play. These skills include preparing the space, materials and ideas for intervention, based on each child's needs, as well as developing her own skill at playing. IN-SERVICE TRAINING In considering in-service training, the question of its value is foremost. Though much of the research looks at elements which need improvement in inservice training, there appears to be great support for the concept of ongoing education for teachers to keep abreast of new developments as well as for support and the interchange of ideas with others. Mohr, (1985) referred to in-service training as"... a respite from struggling with the problems of teaching on my own" (p. 9). Staff development goes beyond teaching new content and skills by fostering "the development of the individual in more fundamental ways as well" (Santmore, 1979, cited in Bents & Howey, 1981). Galambos, (1985) pointed out that much in-service training is remedial in that it seeks to correct deficits in the pre-service training. Its real value lies however in that it allows for a renewal of old ideas and the introduction of alternative models (Joyce, 1981). Some of the factors identified in the research which limit staff development through in-service training include "one-shot" workshops (of less than one-day duration) (Galambos, 1985); a lack of teacher involvement in the planning and process (Mohr, 1985; Watt, 1985); no follow-up support for implementation (Wood et. al., 1981) and training being provided by those removed from the field of daily teaching (Mohr, 1985); content not being based  ".54  on a needs-assessment; insufficient incentives for teachers including financial and professional compensations (Mohr, 1985); inappropriate scheduling of the training such as after a long work day (Bents & Howey, 1981) and inadequate evaluation. Galambos, (1985) and Dillon-Peterson, (1981) stressed the need for proper measurement of staff development efforts other than the opinion of the participants. Dillon-Peterson, (1981) and Bents & Howey (1981), raised the concern of a lack of individualization in in-service training with the norm being the leader-directed lecture presentation. They pointed out that small problem solving groups and "on-the-job" support are seldom provided. Mohr, (1985) outlined some of the elements which create effective inservice training. These include teacher collaboration in the process; that it be ongoing, that it include rewards and that it be given by another teacher. Watt, (1985) too urged active teacher involvement and suggests the teacher becomes a researcher, consciously experimenting and evaluating her own work. Some of the critical characteristics of in-service training as presented by Wood et. al., (1981) included a supportive environment; that it be based upon a needsassessment and common expectations and objectives; that it model the desired behaviours and be experientially based and with the greatest focus being on improving competencies to "do one's job." In-service education, they claimed, should provide options for participants to accommodate individual professional needs and learning styles and should be conducted in the school setting with follow-up and "on-call" assistance provided. They too stressed the need for recognition of training. The above elements are supported by most of the literature. Rowls, (1985), and Bents & Howey, (1981) added the need for training to be long-term and spaced over time, for participation to be voluntary and for opportunities for demonstration and supervised and support based trials and feedback. Bents & Howey, (1981) stressed that adults' motivation to learn  is dependent on their needs and interests. Finally Wood et. al., (1981) pointed out that training must be based on research theory and the best educational practice. Joyce, (1981) mentioned four training elements needed in additon to theory. These are the modelling of skills; practice; structured and open-ended feedback on performance and support of implementation. Bauch, (cited in Galambos, 1985) emphasized the need for a combination of content, skills and theory to be presented so as to ensure long-lasting change. IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER TRAINING A) THE PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES REQUIRED BY THE TEACHER In working with all children, the teacher imparts a sense of "self" (Krown, 1974). However, this is especially true when working with emotionally disturbed children. Axline, (1969) argued that children with great emotional needs often trigger the adults unresolved feelings. Thus, it is important for the teacher to be aware of, and not hampered by, her anxieties, fears and frustrations, so as to allow a responsiveness to the child without emotional Involvements. Furthermore, Read & Patterson, (1980) contended that, to allow for the child's dominance and control in play, the teacher needs to have a strong sense of self adequacy and an ability to control her moods. In order to encourage all children to try out all roles and materials, she needs to cultivate an attitude of tolerance and, an acceptance of differences (Cohen & Rae, 1987). This demands a consciousness on her part of any personal prejudices and biases and a willingness to overcome these. Such an approach, they argued, will enrich the children's play and encourage them to become fully autonomous people.  36  While the training model presented in this study, does not purport to deal with the teacher's intra-psychic issues, it was believed that the introspective component which aims to foster the teacher's playfulness and imaginativeness, may raise some of these by dealing with memories of past experiences. The teacher needs to develop a therapeutic approach which becomes almost instinctual, like a thread weaving itself through the child's day and activities (Weininger, 1979). She can derive much from the principles used in play therapy, adapting these to the needs of a group therapeutic - educational setting. Allen, (1982) argued that these principles need to become an integral part of the teacher's daily activity. Once a solid relationship with the child has been established, the teacher can assess where and how to foster his play. Prior to examining some of the more technical aspects of intervention, it is important to consider the concept of the teacher's own playfulness. By showing enthusiasm and humour, she transmits this to the children and their play. Strom, (1981) contended that this ability to express affect in play is critical so as not to blunt the child's emotional reactions. Research has shown that once trust exists, the play process of even nonplayers can be enhanced if a significant adult plays alongside the child (Axline, 1969; Singer and Singer, 1977; Bettelheim, 1987). Strom, (1981) claimed that adult play with the child greatly increased his sense of self-worth and esteem and Singer and Singer, (1977) showed that the greatest increase in the child's make-believe occurred when the teacher engaged in entirely make-believe games. This finding substantiated that of Freyberg, (1973), who demonstrated that children enjoyed having adults play with them. Sutton-Smith & SuttonSmith, (1974) found that the more an adult plays with the child, the more he can play by himself. Furthermore, Lieberman, (1977) and Aguilar, (1983)  37  demonstrated that the playfulness of young children depends on the modelling of this by the adults in their lives. Bettelheim, (1987) argued that most children get lots of play time with other children but little with an adult who remembers his own play experience. In working with parents, Strom, (1981) found that adults generally estimated their involvement in a play episode to be three or four times greater than the actual amount of time lapsed. The typical adult remained interested in fantasy play with a preschooler for about ten minutes. His studies showed that parents saw their participation in fantasy play to be yet another part of their overall responsibility and not necessarily for their own enjoyment. Also, most teachers too have difficulty in sustaining play (Singer and Singer, 1977). ln part, this may be attributed to the complexity of their role and all the other demands placed upon them including the constant need to supervise, as well as a lack of time, insufficient faith in the value of play and embarassment. However, Singer & Singer, (1977) pointed out that most adults lose that free spirit of joy so readily available to the young child and can therefore no longer sustain concentration in play. According to Bettelheim, (1987) today's adult "wishes to understand, guide, educate; he does not really wish to play" (p. 105). Thus, it becomes difficult for the adult to take the child's play seriously even if, on an intellectual level, she may believe in it. He added that we need "direct empathy with the child's play" (p. 105). In her technique of Theraplay, Jernberg, (1981) focussed on a fun-filled playtime. This demands a teacher with a strong sense of self. Strom, (1981) argued that it is critical for the teacher to be comfortable with play because adults send out subtle signals of approval or disapproval which may be at a conscious or unconscious level. This may encourage or discourage the child's imaginative play. For children to recognize the value of play, adults must see it as important too. But, he urged that this attitude to 38  make-believe must be genuine. He contended that children desire approval and will repeat a satisfying behaviour. Thus, he argued, fantasy play will be repeated if the child feels it merits a significant adult's genuine approval. The playful adult will be able to foster the same sense of playfulness in the child. Spontaneity will allow the teacher to capitalize on her intuition. Before examining how the teacher can regain a sense of playfulness, imagination and creativity as well as how her capacity for fantasy, sensory awareness and relaxation can be enhanced, it is important to consider these elements in depth. These attributes are prerequisites to her ability to both play and to be truly child-centred, respecting and genuinely accepting of the child's unique ways. They will also foster her integration as a fully functioning human being - the basis of any therapeutic centre. Generally associated with the light-hearted feelings of playfulness are the qualities of imaginativeness, spontaneity, and creativity. A literature review reveals how interwoven these qualities are. Aguilar (1983), defined playfulness as "the perception or attitude that allows an individual to behave spontaneously in an activity; it is having the ability to escape, pretend, imagine and make-believe whatever one chooses" (p. 73). She pointed out that the critical element of playfulness is the perception of freedom, both from external and internal influences. This attitude of freedom enables the person to behave at times, a little differently from the usual. Thus, though "freedom sets the stage," the element of the unusual is also essential for playfulness. According to Aguilar, various barriers exist to playfulness such as social control, noise levels and static play equipment. She viewed the playful person as one who laughs easily and is often able to make others laugh. Playfulness, she claimed, releases the individual from tensions and thereby frees expression, creativity and imagination.  39  Play, imagination and creativity were seen as being interrelated in that playfulness is an essential element ("the quintessence") of each (Lieberman, 1977). Playfulness, she argued, survives play and becomes part of a personality trait and thus an individual's approach to the world. Dewey, (1933, cited in Lieberman, 1977) claimed that "playfulness is an attitude of mind; (play) a passing outward manifestation of this attitude" (p. 108). As it develops, Lieberman, (1977) argued, playfulness is manifested in different ways. For example, the "bubbling effervescence" (p. 54), of the adolescent is a carry-over from the preschooler's physical alertness as seen in his skipping, hopping and jumping. Thus, it is clear that by regaining a sense of playfulness as an adult, the teacher not only enhances her ability to play, but also her imagination and creativity for they feed off and into one another. Conversely, by looking at specific ways to develop her imagination and creativity, her playfulness and joy at play will increase. Lieberman, (1977) contended that by recapturing the feeling of childhood playfulness with its unique flavours and colours, educators and therapists will become more genuinely accepting of the child and will need to adhere less to rules. They will be able to relax and enjoy by reincorporating the freedom of the child into their lives. By being less rigid, the playful teacher is able to foster a sense of individuality in the child. To further emphasize the value of playfulness in the teacher's role, it is worth considering its core elements. According to Lieberman, (1977) playfulness..." was operationally defined as physical, social and cognitive spontaneity, manifest joy and a sense of humour" (p. 23).  40  Humour is considered to be easier to identify. Lieberman accepted Eysenck's, (1942) formulation that humour may be divided into cognitive, affective and conative aspects. Humour is developmental in its manifestation and is dependent to some degree on cognitive development as its appreciation and comprehension is dependent on the individual's level of thinking. Cognition in humour serves "the ends of comprehension and appreciation" (p. 70), which leads to competence and mastery. Affect in humour leads to tension reduction. As both competence and tension reduction are reinforcers of feeling good, cognition and affect merge. Regarding affect, Lieberman differentiated between "friendly wit" and "hostile humour," with "friendly wit" being part of playfulness. This type of humour releases the imagination and allows for endless possibilities. Humour allows for the psychological distancing so needed for playfulness to flourish. Further, she saw an individual as being either a producer or a consumer of humour. Her playfulness profiles placed great emphasis on the production of humour. Lieberman identified "manifest joy" by its "operational correlates such as smiling, laughter, chuckling, dancing and facial expressions indicative of joy" (p. 74). She stressed that a need existed to operationalize "joy." Joy too is developmental with there being a tendency for the expression of emotions to change as the individual matures. Little documentation exists however, regarding the development of joy and humour. One of the earliest indicators of joy is the smiling response which progresses to laughter. This becomes an individual's habitual mode of expressing pleasurable satisfaction and serves to communicate the "play mood." Aldis, (1975, cited in Lieberman, 1977) asserted that laughter distinguishes play from non-play situations. Thus, "manifest joy," is more easily identifiable when it accompanies the physical aspects of behaviour such as is seen in spontaneous laughter or the hopping of a child. Zern and Taylor, (1973, cited in Lieberman), studied rhythmicity in nursery 41  school children and found it produced a positive affect. Joy was seen by Lieberman, (1977) as being linked to social variables. She claimed that joy needed a social setting to be shared. Preschoolers use their "play faces" (McGrew, 1972, cited in Lieberman, 1977) to communicate with others and to invite them to join. The teacher needs to learn to both recognize these and to develop them within herself, if she is to engage in truly "playful play". A joyous approach breeds further joy and a teacher who can extend this to her children, offers them the spark needed for play. Joy may also be seen in cognitive mastery as seen in the "playing with ideas." Joy, according to Lieberman, is rarely the major focus of the outcome but more often is only an incidental by-product. In discussing "spontaneity," Lieberman, (1977) stressed how difficult it both is to define this in behavioural terms as well as to measure it. She differentiated between spontaneity and flexibility though these may overlap. She saw spontaneity as occurring in a familiar environment and being intrinsically motivated. Flexibility, occurs in a new situation and is extrinsically motivated. Spontaneity is seen when a familiar given is carried over into a different situation. She argued that, though spontaneity is important to the creative process, it is more accepted at a younger age. The young child's mind is uncluttered by daily concerns and, as such, is more prone to spontaneity. Adults seem to lose this ability of throwing "caution to the wind." Lieberman, (1977) stressed the need for great ego strength to maintain this element in ourselves. She saw spontaneity operating "like the whirl of a kaleidoscope. The bits and pieces of glass are the givens or familiar facts. The twist of the hand produces ever different pictures with the same components" (p. 83). In this way, we see how spontaneity is an essential element of creativity. Lieberman argued that if the teacher can regain this spontaneous affect, she will be able to diversify her approach to life as seen in  42  a greater ability to allow her thoughts and body to engage in the "as if." This will enrich her play ability and allow her to accept and encourage the same in the child. Social spontaneity is seen in the individual's comfort within a group and in the playing with the ideas of self and others. Lieberman, (1977) further differentiated between impulsive, hyperactive behaviour and spontaneous behaviour. For cognitive spontaneity to occur, children need first to be allowed to experiment and thus grow familiar with the material. Physical spontaneity is most readily associated with play activities and is expressed in facial expressions and body movements such as jumping to express exuberance. Lieberman, (1977) differentiated between physical spontaneity and manifest joy in that the emotions accompanying the behaviours of physical spontaneity are not necessarily reflections of joy. By developing her playfulness in a genuine and integrated manner, the teacher will attain "psychological distance" (Lieberman, 1977) which will allow for greater objectivity, a less serious view of herself and the world and an ability to approach life with humour. This approach will create an atmosphere conducive to play and will enable the teacher to develop a language of play. She will be able to view the process and not the product as being important. A less inhibited approach may enlarge the teacher's length and scope of attention and lead to greater focus in play (Lieberman, 1977). Aguilar, (1983) claimed that this, in turn, may encourage a higher endurance for "healthy" noise and less preoccupation with limits and rules. She offered various ideas for increasing playfulness in the classroom. These include increasing outlets of experimentation, self-expression and the exploration of ideas and materials, encouraging fantasy, imagination, humour and playfulness and incorporating the arts (music, dance and drama). 45  It is essential for the teacher to strive for a balance between playing wholeheartedly yet at the same time being able to step aside and watch the process almost as an "alter-self."  To achieve this state requires much  training, both external and internal (Singer, 1975). Firstly, he argued, she needs to regain the ability to become totally immersed in play. Once this is accomplished, with enough knowledge of the required techniques, the teacher may "split off" allowing her inner "child-self" to play concurrently with the skilled facilitator. Ways to regain this very vital sense of playfulness will be discussed after considering the concepts of creativity and imagination. Imagination may be seen as the nucleus from which the individual moves out in all directions, freeing him to explore and experiment (McVickar, 1974). The imagination develops from the store of images received through the senses. Therefore, by enhancing the sensory capacity, the store house of memories will be enriched. The very act of being with children re-energizes the senses and joy of discovery. The imagination, he claimed, is both a very personal and yet a universal process, going beyond the constraints of outer reality and allowing us to explore alternatives. It finds its expression through the expressive arts, science and, for the child, in play. The capacity to imagine enriches the present as well as the future with a wide perspective, enabling us to each have our own unique response. Freud, (1938, cited in Ellis, 1973) saw it as being cathartic in that it helps the individual cope with frustrations and drive-reduction. For example, the infant comforts itself by imagining the mother's breast. Through his play the child learns to handle and direct his fantasy and to think in a divergent way. Singer, (1975) saw the link between this ability for makebelieve and later day-dreaming. Freud, (1938) saw the relationship between early imaginative play and later creative tendencies. When the teacher can enjoy this freedom of allowing the images of her mind to run in an unrestricted way, she will be able to allow the child his spontaneous flights of fantasy. 44  Interlinked with imaginativeness, creativity comes from within (Lieberman, 1977). Yet, clearly, it is impacted upon from without. There appears to be no universally accepted definition of creativity. Some consider it as the ability to create something totally original (Greenacre, 1959), others as the creation as new of something familiar (Lehane, 1979). However, most agree that it is something that is naturally within us and which requires independence of mind, perseverance and hard work to elicit. Greenacre, (1959) described creative people as being highly sensitive and responsive with a predisposition to experiencing a wide range of emotions deeply. Many negative myths cover creativity, blocking innate intuition. Adults have strong notions on creativity - some frowning on it for its deviance from the norm; others being firmly convinced that it is a quality not within them. Lehane, (1979) argued that, one need but look at any young child and the abundance of creative manifestation in his language, song and above all, his play, to see how natural this instinct indeed is. As the child develops this instinct finds expression in curiosity and inventiveness. Clearly then, he contended, the encouragement that is offered to the child's unique actions, strengthens his belief in his ideas. This can only be achieved if the teacher is comfortable enough with her own creativity and open to accepting deviance from the norm. The creative teacher will not only be an invaluable team member for her ideas but also for being open to other styles and ways. Society is not geared to encouraging the individual to rely on his inner resources - prepackaged entertainment, food, clothes and toys prevent a reliance on inner resources (Lehane, 1979). Yet, paradoxically, the survival of the human race is wholly dependent on the creativity of its citizens - for combating disease, for food for the body and nurturance for the spirit. Lehane, (1979) contented that for most adults the inner wonder of childhood becomes dulled by an educational system that is geared towards conformity. It is 45  however, he argued, possible to redevelop and refine this talent. It is essential for the teacher to do so, for it is only once she is relaxed about her own uniqueness, that she can be differentiated enough to accept and nurture independence in a child. Educationally this is essential for life today demands a divergent, critical approach from each person. Furthermore, many myths exist regarding the elusive nature of creativity, which need to be debunked (Lehane, 1979). By rekindling our curiosity about the mysteries of life and by exploring with new wonder, we can regain that driving force. Lehane stressed that exposure to a great variety of aesthetic experiences is critical. The average adult he claimed, has little opportunity for expression in the arts. To do so, we need to stimulate anew our senses and awareness. Lehane, (1979) advocated the need for sufficient time and privacy as a source for creativity. However, many an idea may also be sparked by the sharing of experiences with others. As adults, he urged, we need to learn to follow the energy of our ideas until they are so insistent that they must find expression .We need to seek outlets for these. Powell Jones, (1972) saw the need for proficiency in a particular skill as a prerequisite to creativity. Through repetition, the individual is led to new inspirations and insights. Several theorists have emphasized the need for an uncritical environment (Powell Jones, 1972; Lehane, 1979). This has great implications for staff relations. In order to allow defences to drop and for creativity to emerge without embarrassment, staff need to be totally comfortable with each other. Furthermore, the teacher needs to feel relaxed and sufficiently and psychologically distanced from her daily problems to fully engage in imaginative play. The teacher should develop techniques for relaxation and for transforming her thought processes.  46  By listening to the child's speech the teacher can learn the "language of the imagination." Furthermore, by free associating with ideas and playing around with "what if....," her scope of thought and approach is broadened (Lehane, 1979). Teachers need to be motivated to work at stimulating their sense of playfulness and hence their imaginative and creative skills which will enhance their ability to play. On the flip side, each play situation should be exploited to rediscover those wonderful senses. Not only will this enrich their lives in a personal way but professionally, it will enable them to allow and encourage the child to do so. Adults have these attributes, generally untapped, within themselves (Singer & Singer, 1977; Lehane, 1979) They claimed that, to enhance these, attention needs to be paid to inner resources, memories, dreams and fantasies. Furthermore, by getting in touch with childhood memories, the teacher will be more able to see the world from the child's perspective. For some these are joyous memories, for others more painful; yet most share a fleeting feeling of wonder buried deeply within themselves. A number of researchers have tackled the issue of resurrecting the feelings of childhood. Singer, (1975) argued that while personal introspection cannot substitute for formal research and experimentation, it is an essential part of the scientific component in a field like psychology. He advocated fostering the ability to daydream, which he saw as a "conscious fantasy," a highly private experience which entails turning the mind inward. These inner pictures may represent a sequence of past memories or images of future events and may be in the form of visual images or little inner voices. Past memories represent recurrent yearnings which can be used to fuel creative planning for the future. Lehane, (1979) postulated that daydreaming is the birth of ideas whereas Singer, (1975) saw it as the "springboard to inner  47  life," whereby daydreaming may be seen as a safety valve from frustrations and a means for vicarious enjoyment. By becoming more aware of these processes within herself, the teacher can be more sensitive to those within the child. Daydreaming, Singer, (1975) argued, can be viewed as a useful tool and not as a lazy indulgence. He argued that gross physical activity or rapidly changing external stimuli, he claimed, inhibit sensitivity to inner processes. Daydreaming occurs best in solitude for it is a process of entering the privacy of personal consciousness. He urged the allowance of time to enjoy this "interior monologue," claiming that the most suitable time is just before sleep when the body and mind are in a relaxed state. Under conditions of drowsiness it is difficult to maintain a stream of orderly, logical thought which results in greater personal and rich visual imagery. He suggested the tracking of fantasies, most of which have persisted since childhood, looking for themes and patterns. Attention to passing fantasies will enable the development of a labelling and classification system for them. Singer, (1975) advocated first concentrating on developing a certain inner quiet, becoming aware of "the noises of our organs" and thereby focussing inward. By "fixing the eyes" or closing them, any new information is blotted out, thereby allowing full immersion in the act. By depriving the senses of any stimulation, defences are broken down which allows further access to repressed memories. He believed that it was easiest to start with a memory sequence which.once started, seems to run its course automatically. He cautioned that some images may seem unacceptable to those inexperienced in introspection. However, a willingness to explicate long-forgotten material will lead to a richer fantasy life for it is "the magic of our early years transformed in imagery." This in turn will enhance creativity. The teacher can thus use her daydreams to harness the imagery in order to offer new challenges  48  and possibilities to children. Furthermore, by developing this inner awareness she will be more able to recognize the child's imagery. This process enriches her play ability and fosters her spontaneity for make-believe. Dreams are an imaginative activity in that they form mental images of what is actually present to the senses (Rycroft, 1979). They occur during sleep and only upon awakening are they recognized as products of one's own mind. As with any imaginative process, dreams are free of limitations imposed by space, time or gravity. Fromm, (1971) claimed that the individual is less reasonable, yet capable of greater judgement. Dreams were seen as a form of communicating with oneself when regular defences are down (Rycroft, 1979). This puts one in touch with repressed and buried emotions and as such can help the individual become more integrated. As with daydreams, dreams may be in the form of memories or future visions. Hendricks & Wills, (1975) argued that dreams are important because they are real in that we do experience them and that they give us access to material that is not available when we're awake. They too need to be studied in series and carefully logged. The language of dreams is a symbolic one of myths and fairy tales; a common universal one. Rycroft, (1979) referred to the extreme paradox of the dream state, in which we are less reasonable yet wiser and more capable of judgement. To exploit dreams, Rycroft, (1979) suggested a gradual transition from the dream world to the waking one needs to be made, focussing on the fleeting dream images and allowing them to be incorporated into daily life. By completing dreams, we can help with our own psychological integration. Various suggestions for this were offered by Hendricks & Wills, (1975). These may be completed in the imagination (through guided imagery) or in a dream state. One way is the sharing of the dream which may offer suggestions for continuing it. Another method is through looping. This entails, during the transition, which occurs just before sleep, slowly looping the last part of the 49  previous dream sequence into the new one in a very relaxed manner. The "waking dream" was a concept put forth by Epstein, (1981), whereby through relaxation, the individual imagines herself to be in a dream through relaxation and continue its movement in a waking state, yet free from daily restrictions. By transcending the physicality, it enables one to see all possibilities and to unite the concrete and imaginative worlds. By learning to separate our different realities, we can realize how difficult this process is for the child. Singer, (1975) claimed that our dream analysis deepens our awareness of the kinds of materials children enjoy in stories or on television for it sensitizes us to the emotions of others. The teacher who is successful with her dream work may try to incorporate it into school, for example, by having the children play out and share their dreams. This work vastly enhances both the children and the teacher's capacity for play, whilst helping them integrate various aspects of their self. To dream or daydream, researchers stress that relaxation of both body and mind are essential so as to retrieve valuable psychic energy from tensions. Furthermore, to fully engage in play a state of full relaxation is also critical (Strom, 1981). A tense teacher may trigger an explosion of emotions in a child (Axline, 1969). Lieberman, (1977) claims that true playfulness includes an ease of movement. Relaxation will also make the teacher aware of her body language, so critical to play (Sapir, 1984). Hendricks & Wills, (1975), recommended first freeing the body by shaking and stretching it. Awareness is increased by breathing deeply and sending the breath to every corner of one's being. Based on the belief that unconscious feelings are first reflected in bodily tensions, this awareness of the source of tension and the use of breathing to eradicate it, is essential for the teacher to develop. Once this relaxation is achieved, the sensory awareness becomes enhanced which In turn fosters the ability for imagery.  50  The concept of "centering" (Hendricks & Wills, 1975), was derived from a need to integrate the mind and body - "to have the intellect and intuition working in harmony". Hendricks & Wills, (1975) suggested finding one's own private haven In the recesses of the mind to which you can let your thoughts float. This ability leads to an inner serenity and is most helpful in working with children, for it allows the teacher to depersonalize tense situations. This act of visualization can help develop all her senses for they are the means to unite the concrete and imaginal realities (Epstein, 1981). A further way for adults to stimulate the richness of imagery in their lives is by reading special stories of magic and wonder (Lehane, 1979). Reading is a revival of fantasy for an adult, allowing for pleasant recollection. Certain films offer the adult the world from a child's perspective. By reminiscing, the teacher can recapture the world of her childhood (Singer & Singer, 1977). In addition to using the techniques of dreams and imagery, she may follow the "research stance" as advocated in the family of origin work done in Multi-generational Family Therapy (Bowen, 1966). This entails reconnecting with the past. Anecdotes from family and friends revive rich memories. Often smells or pictures will conjure up past contexts which will shoot one back into personal memories. Singer and Singer, (1977) argued that the parent's play with the infant is the most powerful determinant of later play styles. By free association and letting her thoughts run, the teacher may try and analyze her early play experience - her favourite activities and body postures, playmates, type of play, secret societies, rituals and scary fantasies. They claimed that the right context is critical to moving memories. By regaining contact with these memories the teacher may increase her sensitivity to the child's thinking as well as being able to use them to develop her own play resources. They offered various exercises which may be used to remind the teacher of the joys and 51  anxieties of childhood. These, they claimed, can make her aware of how often she imposes a structure and control on the child and can free within herself an intuitiveness and expressiveness which makes for a more flexible and open response to the child and hence to greater pure enjoyment in each child's unique ways. In her work with children, the teacher is offered an opportunity to recapture the childhood thrill and wonder. The fostering of the aforementioned qualities are the basic building blocks of the teacher's role as facilitator of play. B) THE TECHNICAL SKILLS REQUIRED BY THE TEACHER 1) OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT In addition to the above more personal skills, the teacher needs to develop certain techniques. These include a sound knowledge of child development and of the sequential play levels. It is important to view play behaviour within a broad model of child development as well as noting individual differences due to temperamental, emotional or environmental factors (Cohen & Rae, 1987). Hence, the teacher needs to make a clear assessment of the child's overall development. Taking all of these into consideration, she then needs to ascertain his/her level of play. Using a baseline of his overall and play development, she plans her goals and interventions. Some children may need time to revert to earlier stages (for example, offering a neglected child time for baby games) (Bettelheim, 1987). Furthermore, all children's play may need to move back and forth as the child consolidates learning or deals with emotional issues (Weininger, 1979).  52  This theoretical knowledge, in conjunction with listening and observing techniques, will enable her to critically appraise her program and to plan accordingly (Cohen & Rae, 1987). An observation of play offers the adult more cues to the individual skills, traits and emotions than perhaps any other area (Read & Patterson, 1980) and thus allows teaching to proceed in a purposeful way. Johnson et. al.,(1987) went so far as to claim that, without careful observation, the adult can do great harm. It is vital for the teacher to set realistic goals, based on a comprehensive account of play, viewing it as multi-determined. It is the teacher's responsibility to keep track of each child's individual play styles, current play interests, types and levels of play, preferred toys and spaces, recurring speech patterns, verbal and non-verbal communication and strengths and limitations (Weinenger, 1979). She needs to observe all of these aspects of the child, viewing him as one intricate interrelated system. Oaklander, (1978) emphasised the importance of watching the process as the child plays including how he approaches materials, what he choses and avoids, his need for structure and his difficulty with shifts. In addition, an observation of the content of the child's play (including themes and storylines of fantasy) is crucial to a full understanding of what play reveals. Weininger, (1979) added the need to assess through the observation of play what the child has learned, how he has acquired information and whether he is ready to have his environment changed. To understand fantasy, Singer, (1973) claimed that, the teacher needs to record the actual sequences of behaviour and verbalization, avoiding hasty labelling. These will give cues to the child's preoccupations. To do so, it is necessary to be focussed and systematic yet unobtrusive in the observations. Videotape recordings he argued, allow for replay and hence a more detailed record and analysis of behaviour. It also enables teachers and parents to evaluate their 53  involvement skills as well as allowing teachers to improve their powers of observation. Different Play Scales exist to help analyze a child's play behaviour. Parten's, (1933) Social scales and Howe's (1980) Peer Play scales, (cited in Cohen & Rae, 1987) tapped the level of their social play and Piagefs, (1945) Cognitive scales the cognitive play. Ruben, (1978) amalgamated Parten and Piaget's scales to offer a broad view of the child's play levels. Smilansky's, (1968) Socio-dramatic Play Inventory offered a detailed look at the sequential elements of this advanced form of play. However, any system of classification is arbitrary in that it is imposed upon the child and does not necessarily reflect his intent (Read & Patterson, 1980). At all times the teacher needs to assess the child's emotional state. Nicolayson, (1981) added the importance of "watching beyond," of looking for motives and meanings behind the child's behaviour. Yet, Strom, (1981) urged the teacher to guard against unnecessarily complicated interpretations for simple behaviours. Less formal means of observing and assessing include naturalistic observation, anecdotal records as well as simple interviews of the child about his play preferences (Singer, 1973). Observation should be made in a setting that allows the child to display his play abilities, bearing in mind that these may differ for children of different socio-cultural backgrounds (Smilansky, 1968). Observation should be delayed until the children are familiar with each other and the setting and should be done repeatedly to minimize the effect of any transient factors. Strom, (1981) spoke of the short adult attention span for observing play. This may in part be due to a lack of belief in fantasy as well as due to all the demands on a teacher in a busy classroom. He claimed that by the very act of observation, the teacher communicates her approval of play to the child.  54  It Is essential for the teacher to become familiar with a number of ways for the observation, recording and rating of play behaviour. For they allow her to know where to extend and to enrich, how to structure her environment and which materials to provide - all in relation to the "developing child" (Read & Patterson, 1980). 2) STRUCTURING THE PHYSICAL PLAY WORLD Once the emotional environment, the "safety zone" (Axline, 1969) is established, the teacher may structure and restructure the physical setting of the classroom, based on her observations, objectives, values, modes of involvement and aesthetic sense. Her choice of materials and how she arranges the space are critical to the encouragement, style and development of a child's play. Teets, (1983) found that behaviour could be changed by changing the classroom environment. Greater organization, complexity and variety led to greater creativity and verbalization. Furthermore, the more the space encouraged verbal communication and use of materials, the more the onlooking behaviour dropped. Well organized space allows the teacher to have "discretionary time," by eliminating points of conflict (Read & Patterson, 1980). The organization of the class has great impact on the kinds of play; on the need for staff to tidy and on noise, conflicts and activity levels. Wolfgang, (1977) argued that, without organization, the environment impedes play and leads to negative confrontations. The arrangement of the physical space is important in that it dictates the traffic patterns and the accessibility and the attraction of the equipment as well as the freedom to explore. Clear pathways through the room need to be demarcated and central open areas, as well as defined learning or activity centres, need to be allowed for (Krown, 1974). This enables the child's 55  physical movement as well as his manipulation of objects - a prerequisite for make-believe (Singer & Singer, 1977). Generally, small partitioned areas appear to lead to higher quality play and less rowdy behaviour. Greater aggression and activity occurs in rooms with less spatial boundaries. Campbell & Dill, (in Frost, 1983) found that less space placed greater demands on the staff for it caused greater frustration in the children and less organization in dramatic play. Ginott, (in Landreth, 1982) argued that too small a physical setting leads to unwelcome proximity and frustration whereas too large an area caused wild running and the avoidance of contact between children. The closer proximity seems to encourage greater interaction and less distractions. However, a balance needs to be kept in allowing areas for individual, small and large groups for this has implications for different types of play behaviour. Wolfgang, (1977) referred to the need for a balance between a Simple Play Unit (composed of one material); a Complex Unit (composed of more than one material); a Super Complex Unit (involving more than three types of materials such as dress-ups) and a Potential Unit (which is open, allowing for additions and changes). The basic activity areas mentioned in all the literature include the block, housekeeping, music, book, art, manipulatives, sand, water, woodwork, science and math and what, Weininger, (1979) called "private" centres. These need to be designed for flexibility and function and to encourage individual play styles. Weininger recommended that these areas blend Into one another and that they allow for choices and active involvement. The private space (such as "hideyholes," boxes and pillows) is vital to allow the child the authority to possess and control an area as well as to escape from public view and indulge his creativity. Teets, (1983) suggested insulating quiet areas. Additional, less common areas are the sensory centre which provides sensory-enhancing experience and hence feeds the child's imaginative capacity and the  56  communications centre (Weininger, 1979). Parten, (1933) found an interaction between age and play environment with sand play being the most favoured activity of the two to two-and-a-half year old group and the family house and doll play the most chosen activity of the three year old group. Play patterns have been found to differ in each area with solitary play predominating in the table-toy area, parallel play in the art, water and sand centres and group play in the block and housekeeping sections (Cohen & Rae, 1987). Certain materials and room arrangements lead to greater role play while others encourage construction, manipulation and large motor play. It was found that by removing the barrier between the block and housekeeping areas, socio-dramatic play was greatly enhanced (Kinsmen & Berk, 1979, cited in Johnson et. al., 1987). The housekeeping area in particular contributes greatly to the socio-emotional development of the child. It also richly enhances imaginative and cohesive language (Pellegrini, 1985). Dramatic play is especially fostered by costumes, dolls and "language props" such as the telephone. Dodge and Frost, (1986) found that by age five most boys tended to choose play spaces and themes other than the domestic ones suggested by the centre. Unfortunately, they contended, most preschools offer it as the only area for socio-dramatic play. An option might be for the teacher to create additional areas for socio-dramatic play which would be enriched by theme-related props. To prevent the stagnation of play the contents of areas should be gradually introduced and rotated frequently (such as the housekeeping area becoming a hospital or campsite) ( Dodge & Frost, 1986). This fosters greater usage and role variety. Any change needs to originate from the child's point of interest so that play can help the child integrate his experiences (Piaget, 1945). The space should be created so as to encourage an enactment of roles but not to dictate their content. The importance of familiarity and the  57  attachment to specific objects certain children may have needs to be remembered (Weininger, 1979). Indirect learning should be encouraged throughout the room (such as, literacy throught the identification of items and the classification of materials) (Cohen & Rae, 1987) Woodard, (1985) offered a number of principles regarding the introduction of theme corners. Firstly, experiences related to the theme should be provided to give the children an understanding of the roles involved. Well planned fieldtrips provide valuable background knowledge. Secondly, much can be taught regarding the theme through fllmstrips, puppet shows, flannel board presentations, discussions and books. Finally, it is important to plan and create a captivating environment for the theme, including appropriate props to establish and expand play. Boys were found to need more realistic props than girls. One theme corner at a time should be introduced with the housekeeping area kept as permanent. Theme corners need to be of interest to both sexes. Practical issues may dictate the room layout such as water and electrical outlets, the lighting and the need for adjacent areas to complement and not compete. Well arranged space eliminates conflict, freeing the teacher to engage in observations and play interactions (Read & Patterson, 1980). Though outdoor playgrounds are as important and promise a wealth of opportunity, it is not the purpose of the paper to delve into the issues surrounding it. Suffice to say that they need to offer diversity of equipment and complexity and versatility in challenges, experiences and types of play promoted (Frost & Sunderlin, 1983). It is essential for the teacher to give the child physical and psychological room for it only becomes "effective play space" when ceded to the child for this purpose (Singer & Singer, 1977). However, in working with emotionally disturbed children, this may need to be modified. Krown, (1974) 58  claimed that, closer "tracking" may be needed to ensure the safety of all children and the teacher may need to intrude on the barrier which the anxious child draws around himself. Futhermore, the space needs to be constantly reevaluated to assess the compatability of activities, staleness in useage and the needs of the children at any given point (Teets, 1983). 3) THE SELECTION OF THE PLAY MATERIALS Research points to a great use of props by children. Tizard (1977, cited in Johnson et. al., 1987) found that 97% of children's free play involved some kind of material. Thus, their selection, display and the timing of when they should be introduced are of critical importance. Materials should be displayed in a safe, aesthetic and orderly way at the child's level. Enough material, without being overwhelming, should be presented. Too much material per child may lead to greater solitary and parallel play, though also to less aggression. In the study by Smilansky, (1968) too many similar toys was shown to stagnate play as everyone took on the same role. However, Weininger, (1979) arged that disturbed children may need a lot of the same type of material, such as baby bottles, to enable them to play out their problems in a parallel style within the larger group. Large quantities of materials may also alleviate fears of deprivation. To stimulate group play, duplication of some props is essential, such as two telephones. The teacher needs to consider a number of related issues. Younger preschoolers, and many deprived children, need realistic props which suggest specific uses to stimulate play (Hartley, 1963). Older children, as they gain experience with symbolic representation, use less representational slgnif lers for play. Props help define a common theme for younger children (and for less advantaged children, as in the study by Smilansky, 1968) whilst the older group direct their play verbally with the use of imaginary actions and events (Dodge 59  & Frost, 1986). 5utton-5mith & Sutton-Smith, (1974) saw a developmental progression in the choice of toys. The baby needs toys that have a consequence to his actions thus allowing for his control and sense of self-worth. The toddler requires miniature people, cars and houses which allow him a greater variety of world control, as well as art materials for the enhancement of creativity. School age children need board games which encourage decisionmaking. As the children need the opportunity to create their own themes and improvise with materials, it is important for the teacher to provide nonthematic areas (Dodge & Frost, 1986). These would offer versatile, movable equipment such as hollow wooden blocks, blankets, mats and cardboard boxes and would not dictate the content of the roles. More realistic props from other areas may be brought in when needed. Dodge & Frost, (1986) recommended this type of area become a permanent feature to allow children to become familiar with its usage. They argued that even unstructured materials can become structured if given instructions on how to use them. Research is conflicting as to whether raw, unstructured materials alone stimulate pretend play. Pulaski, (1973) found that the level of structure of toys had little effect on the creativity of play. Similarly, ricLoyd, (1983, cited in Dodge and Frost, 1986) demonstrated that low-structure items that had no pretend connotations, such as pipecleaners, did not enhance pretend play. Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, (1974) argued that toys should be a realistic model of some aspect of the world, manageable by the child and able to be assembled into alternative models. This was found by Smilansky, (1968) to be particularly true for the disadvantaged group of children in her study whose play was based on imitative activities. Strom, (1981) advocated for a balance of these versatile, flexible, failure-proof props with more realistic, thematically-oriented ones. The child should be free to select or reject any material or to use it in as creative and 60  flexible a way as possible (Brazelton in Strom, 1981). Wolfgang, (1977) referred to a continuum of objects which ranges from fluid (such as water and finger paints) to more structured (such as dry sand, lego) to very structured (such as puzzles). He claimed that fluid material demands control and hence is too dificult for the aggressive child. The preschooler has difficulty grasping the concept of transformation in fluid objects. The aggressive child needs structured manageable and predictable objects. Some sex differences in attitudes to toys have been noted, with girls preferring those related to home and boys the blocks and super-hero themes. There has been found to be a shift in girls' attitudes towards traditionally masculine toys but not visa versa (Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, 1974). Bettelheim, (1987) stressed the need to offer boys dolls for play as a means to alleviate anxieties and a practice for future family roles. The teacher should provide props for all types of professions so as to expand on play options as well as materials and corners of interest to boys so as to expand their involvement in socio-dramatic play. The teacher needs to watch her unconscious or conscious sex biases. Singer and Singer, (1977) found that teachers offered greater accompaniment for female-preferred activities, thereby re-channeling the behaviour of boys. On the question of guns, research seem to be consistent of the need to allow guns in play. Bettelheim, (1987) stressed that they enable the child to play out his fantasy and rid himself of his aggression symbolically as well as to become empowered. The presence of a toy gun, Axline, (1969) claimed, conveys the acceptance of fantasy aggression. Others, (Read & Patterson, 1980, Strom, 1981), argued that guns are a part of our world and play, an honest reflection of such. Lehane, (1979) saw a special morality of justice, trust, good and bad which children impose on gun play. Both Bettelheim, (1987) and Strom, (1981) stressed the need for the teacher to illustrate and not to 61  impose her values. This may be achieved by elaborating on the play episode (for example being the peace-keeper) and by adding helping, healing toys. In this way she can help the child realize the consequences of gun play. By not allowing guns, play is often driven "underground," blocking the expression of their emotions and alienating the children from the teacher. "Danger play" allows the child to take chances and to experience the dichotomy of the "good/bad". It allows for conflict without guilt and for leadership and command. In addition to non-sexist and multi-ethnic material, the teacher should choose those that offer multi-sensory experiences, are well made, safe and suited to the child's abilities and interests. Pulaski, (1973) argued that the teacher should work at persuading toy manufacturers to sponsor more imaginative toys that allow for the child's unique input. The teacher needs to consider materials for their therapeutic benefits (Landreth, 1982). These include those which facilitate a relationship with the child such as a doll family. Play equipment which represents miniature replicas of the adult world are essential to allow the child to play out his real world (Sutton-Smith, 1981 in Strom, 1981). Ginnot, (1982) pointed to certain toys evoking catharsis, such as mud and clay and which provide an outlet for private frustrations and aggression and allow the child to express forbidden images. He advocated the teacher allowing materials for the enactment of all their fantasies such as frightening snakes and comforting baby bottles. Water acts as a soothing tension releaser. Play dough and sand, being projective tools, allow the teacher to tap the child's inner world for by being pliable, they offer no barrier to the imagination (Axline, 1969). Oaklander, (1978) saw the sandworld as a reflection of the child's emotional world. Drawings too offer a gateway to the child's unconscious (Allan, 1978). Children are able to project their feelings onto puppets and dolls while costumes offer them a defensive 62  disguise. Weininger, (1979) argued that the child's emotional life determines the selection and use of materials. Only familiar materials should be presented initially to the disturbed child in an unthreatening way. New material must be presented in a manner which is directly related to their momentary concern (Anker et. al. in Strom, 1981). A few materials at a time should be introduced, giving sufficient time for exploration which leads to mastery and hence to greater creativity.  A) SCHEDULING THE PLAY TIME According to most of the research (such as Wolfgang, 1977; Read & Patterson, 1980; Strom, 1981), the child needs to be able to predict sequences of events. Weininger, (1979) argued that routines become the child's anchor points. The teacher plays a critical role in scheduling the child's play time. Her assessment of when to introduce new materials is critical. The child needs time to become familiar with objects, to practice at his own pace, to enjoy his new mastery and to repeat and re-enact. For group play, time is required to recruit co-players, select props, plan storylines and to carry out dramatizations. If time is insufficient (Johnson et. al., 1987 recommended 3050 minute play periods), the child will give up on socio-dramatic play and resort to simpler levels. For the disturbed child, time is needed to feel safe before being able to play. The schedule should be flexible and transitions should be preceded by a warning or, as Weininger, (1979) suggested, snack and other routines may be incorporated into play. Transitions should be negotiated through the play medium, for example, having a child "drive" his car to the garage for repairs, is one way to close a play episode which is both not jarring and congruent with the child's imaginative thinking.  63  5) MONITORING THE PLAY GROUP COMPOSITION The group's composition is critical to the play process. Both Ginott, (1982) and Guerney (1983), saw the need for a balance in the play group. This would include having children who exhibit different needs and difficulties. For example, those who are highly aggressive or sexually inappropriate have greatly destructive effects on others and may need to be treated individually before being slowly integrated into a group. Children who indulge overmuch in fantasy need reality-oriented friends. Furthermore, Guerney, (1983) argued for the need to have children who can model socially-acceptable behaviour, thus making a strong case for integration. Garvey, (1977) stressed how crucial the compatability of children within the group is. This was supported by Aguilar, (1983) who saw children as exerting different influences on each other's playfulness, depending on the group composition. Group size affects play, particularly with emotionally disturbed children who are highly needy and can often not tolerate others in their play. Some children may need to be redirected to other alternatives. Parten, (1933) claimed that group size increases with the age of the play group, with the most frequently evolving preschool group have two children in it. The best group size was seen (by Singer and Singer, 1977) as being four. Strom, (1981) saw groups comprised of the same age children as facilitating interests, allowing for repetition, independence, assertion and group belonging. However, he also pointed out that older children model play for the younger as it is easier for them to approximate the performance of other children than of adults. Hartley, (1963) viewed the best playmate for a two year old as being a five year old for this lessens the burden of the toddler to defend self and belongings and thus allows for greater relaxation and play. Once the physical environment is set in a way conducive to a higher level of play (such as dramatic), it is necessary to reassess it. Based on this the 64  teacher evaluates if, when and how to foster play and whether it be on a solitary or group level. 6) INCORPORATING THE THERAPUTIC ELEMENT IN GROUP PLAY The teacher faces a struggle to find the balance which would incorporate a truly therapeutic approach with an educational one. Unfortunately the educational system has created artificial divisions for the child, ignoring the fact that he learns and develops in an integrated way (Hendrick, 1986). She advocated that, an approach needs to be developed which would both allow the child to deal with his intra-psychic issues whilst encouraging his social and cognitive development. This balance should answer and enhance all the five "selves" (Hendricks, 1986) of the child - the social, emotional, cognitive, creative and physical. Individual play sessions, as occur in play therapy, allow for the most intense use of play as a healing force as these provide the child with a private therapeutic space, sufficient time, the appropriate materials and above all, a meaningful relationship for eliciting the healing potential. However, the focus of this paper is on group work and on how to foster the playskills of the emotionally troubled child within a group situation. This is very demanding on the teacher for the needs of these children are so pressing and their egos so fragile, that play may elicit the explosion of these intense feelings. Slavson, (1981) referred to the child's unconscious as being near the surface and being easily stimulated. Other children with thick boundaries between the conscious and unconscious worlds may need help understanding the source of their feelings. Play can be used as a vehicle for tapping this. Yet another group of children may be afraid of play evoking threatening emotions which have been repressed (Krown, 1974). These children may be so self-absorbed with traumas, that they cannot be reached or reach out to others in play. The fearful 65  and anxiety ridden child may be unable to engage in even solitary play, even within a small group. To play, the child needs to feel safe enough to relax and allow his fantasy to roam. It is clear that within a group setting it is more difficult to create a fully permissive atmosphere, with no evaluation or pressure to change and full self-direction allowed to the child. The group's needs and peer pressure often force change within the child. In this way the group offers the child, on a miniature scale, an opportunity to rehearse and master social skills. Furthermore, the teacher may need to be more directive in her limit setting to ensure the safety and to protect the personal space of each child. The abused child may need limits set for he may be overwhelmed by anger (Cohen & Rae, 1987). This should be done in a highly sensitive manner without projection; an example being the need to deal with a child who is unable to tolerate another engaging in successful play. Weininger, (1979) suggested holding this child gently on the sidelines, observing with him the other's play, discussing his feelings and possibly concrete ways In which he can be involved. This fostered the child's insight into his own behaviours as well as that of the other children. In this way mutual empathy and acceptance were encouraged. Clear limits helped the child in developing self-control. However, Weininger cautioned that teachers need to be aware of imposing societal norms to such a degree that the child overengages in defensive energy. Often the teacher tends to overcontrol or overinterpret. Further, too much insistence on reaching the child's unconscious, might break down communication and rapport (Axline, 1982). Guerney, (1983) argued that by placing few demands upon children they become more responsive to their own internal states, which enhances fantasizing. This in turn helps to control anxiety and impulses (Singer, 1975). A balance between freedom and essential limits needs to be struck. Much of this depends on the teacher's expectations 66  v  and need for conformity, which ties in once more with the issue raised earlier - her attitude to, and sense of, creativity. She also needs to examine her own issues around violence and other socially unacceptable behaviours as expressed in the child's play. To be therapeutic she needs to allow the child to express these in a symbolic manner, thereby gaining cathartic relief (Axline, 1969). This permissiveness is as important for children suffering situational stresses as those suffering from chronic stress. Through play the child finds ways of coping. By offering music, play and storytelling time, the child is further offered ways to express feelings. Axline, (1969) argued that "attitudes and feelings that are denied expression openly go underground and grow out of proportion to the initial cause of the feeling" (p. 57). With the appropriate material and encouragement, the teacher can foster symbolic reparation. Certain games are directly related to dealing with specific anxieties (such as "peek-a-boo" enhancing object constancy and "moving" alleviating fears of separation). By listening "creatively" (Alexander, 1981) to the child at play, the teacher can share his inner experience and let him develop an inner awareness. However, her reflection needs to be nonjudgemental to avoid stifling the therapeutic and creative process. A further means to use the child's play to facilitate his emotional growth is to help him incorporate family issues, thereby reducing anxiety. The teacher requires the skills to facilitate the play of a group of children in order to allow each to act out his own themes and issues. Intervention techniques may focus initially on enhancing the child's ability for fantasy in solitary or parallel play. In addition to learning basic playskills, guidance and insight provided, help facilitate emotional healing. Concurrent to this process and based on careful assessment, the teacher may foster social play skills. Once he is able to engage in group play (bearing in 67  mind that this can vary from day to day), the skilled teacher can aid him in using this experience for the expression of difficulties, whilst offering him the benefit of the greatest value of group play, the interactional-relationship component. Slavson, (1981), saw the group as helping the child overcome "narcissistic and autistic fixations" by allowing him to discover the advantage of relationships. This creation of interpersonal bonds enhances the child"s self-esteem and confidence and hence fosters his emotional growth. The skilled teacher should be able to assess the child's emotional situation at any given time and to allow for a balance of individual and group play, as deemed appropriate. Singer, (1973) viewed toys as mediating and facilitating social interactions and serving as entry mechanisms. It is important to recognize how intimately linked the child's well-being is to a wider socio-political system (Sapir, 1984). So many burdens which impinge on the child originate from a depressed home situation as well as from an educational system which demands conformity and academic excellence. Somewhere the "person" of the child and, indeed at times, of humanity have been left behind. The teacher needs to understand both the child's unique feelings and thought processes as well as his learning style. Through modelling it should become generalized to the children and parents and help them find new ways to accept and support each other. They may then mobilize in the struggle to change the system - to incorporate the whole being of the child, with the ultimate educational aim being the enhancement of his self from within. 7) FOSTERING THE PLAY PROCESS A number of different approaches to teacher intervention in play exist. Traditionally, the Psychoanalytic approach was to set the stage for play and then to reflect the child's actions whilst observing closely for emotional clues 68  (Axline, 1969). It was thought that direct adult intervention would disrupt play, inhibiting true feelings and thereby reducing play's therapeutic benefits. In the 1960's, the more cognitively oriented theories of Piaget became prominent as play's role in the social-intellectual development was examined. Smilansky, (1968) pioneered play training experiments to show the beneficial effects of adult involvement in play. This was supported by Christie, (1982) who saw selective adult participation as enriching play by conveying the value of make-believe and fostering the adult-child bond. One of the issues raised by the research in considering play interventions is the degree of directedness. Play, by its very nature, allows for learning through self-discovery with the child being in control. Christie, (1982) argued that, any intervention should be responsive and appropriate and offer a balance between the teacher and child's self-responsibility, spontaneity and creativity. There should be no attempt made to modify a child's style of self-expression in play. At all times the child should be left in control. He contended that any intervention perceived by a the child as an imposition will disrupt play and possibly terminate it. Furthermore, the danger exists that, by fostering a particular play it could preclude a child finding more natural, intellectual, expressive and creative ways. Adults should provide a nurturing environment within which children can find their own unique talents and preferences (Cohen &Rae, 1987). The teacher's involvement is to be based on careful assessment and may take a variety of forms, from being merely observational to being a play partner, to actually tutoring the child in play skills. However, her primary intervention, at any level of play is to foster the child's capacity for playfulness and fantasy for this provides him with the basic tools needed for all types of play (Singer & Singer, 1977).  69  Singer & Singer, (1977) urged that, to enjoy the benefits of imagery, children need to learn to use all their senses fully. They need time to store and practice these sensations. Thus, by building up the child's different sensing capacities, the teacher enables him to recapture pleasant sensations. Makebelieve play demands that the child to introduce elements of sight, sound, touch or movement imagery. The teacher needs to make the child more alert and aware of the environment by dramatizing and asking leading questions. She should arouse his curiosity and stimulate his acquisition of knowledge through a wide range of experiences (Krown, 1974). She needs to allow him his privacy and time for reflection, his dreams and stories and to foster his creativity through art, music and dance. Choices are essential to the development of fantasy. By introducing simple exercises in imagination, such as, visualizations make-believe may be further encouraged. Open-ended, nonspecific questions such as, "How is a rabbit?" (Weininger, 1979) and "I wonder...?" and "What if...?" enhance creative responses. Any questions must be based on the child's current activity. Strom, (1981) saw the key to creativity as being not the materials but the interaction between those who are teaching and those who are learning ,with the materials. The allowance and enhancement of the child's flights of fantasy are vital not only to his enjoyment but to his ability to fully benefit from each play level (Singer & Singer, 1977). The teacher needs to assess at what level the child is functioning at any given point in time, for make-believe is inherent in all forms, levels and styles of the child's play. Based on this assessment, she may guide the play towards solitary or group; she may be more directive or more passive and she may interpret or merely make mental hypotheses. For example, on an imitative level, the teacher may join in, parallel style, to expand the child's play. Through her own playfulness, she imparts a spark of joy and fun to the child's play. Once he moves to solitary pretend play, 70  such as with miniature people, she can join in either on a parallel level or as a play partner and expand his play. She can use this to tap his feelings, help him gain an understanding and increase his capacity for make-believe by herself taking on a role. Different techniques are offered in the literature to enable the child to take on a playmate. A transitional phase may be the inclusion of a playmate in miniature world play prior to the creation of a playscene on real life scale, which demands of the child to use his very person. For the level of sociodramatic play demands much social competence and can be threatening to the emotionally challenged child. 8) TECHNIQUES OF INTERVENTION Before the play episode, the teacher may influence play by providing common preparatory experiences such as field trips (Smilansky, 1968). For the richer the child's life, the richer his play will be. She may also hold small group work sessions such as storytelling, or showing filmstrips to stimulate ideas and provide the "scaffolding" for play (Johnson et. al., 1987). As language is so critical to play, playful interchanges and songs and encouraging children to enjoy sounds and phrases are very important as these enrich language (Garvey, 1977). The concept of sequencing may be developed through the predictability of routines, through storytelling, through the steps in a recipe or the creation of a building (Hendrick, 1986). Weininger, (1979) talked of using small groups in a therapeuticeducational way to help the emotionally damaged child heal whilst building his playskills. Within a small group setting, the teacher created a common theme of play in which each child could find self-expression. Props were gradually added and through discussion, more elaborate and longer play scenes were developed. Wolfgang, (1977) too developed a number of exercises to prepare 71  and train the passive and aggressive child for play within a group. Both these techniques looked at enhancing self esteem and poor body image as a prerequisite to play. It is important to help these children find outlets for their emotions as a stepping stone to play. Freyberg, (1973) using raw materials, found that after a number of training sessions where adults were actively engaged in pretend play, the children began to exhibit imaginative and spontaneous use of toys and creative make-believe. By using pipe-cleaner people, play-dough, blocks and tinker toys to act out small plots, play was fostered. The experimental group showed greater organization in play, greater use of vocalizations and voice changes, greater dialogues, greater labelling, greater attention to detail and absorption in play. Similar results were found by Singer, (1973) in training children in imaginative play. This lends support to the notion of small-group work with active teacher involvement, as a basis to play. To enhance the child's play, Cohen & Rae, (1987) suggested a continuum of active teacher involvement in play. This ranged from casual informal interacting to highly structured and directed, which may include formal teaching through play. Tizard (cited in Johnson et. al., 1987) claimed that an element of instruction removes the fun from play. Due to the poor playskills of the emotionally disturbed child, a "modified free play" approach may be most useful - whereby the teacher observes, steps in to enrich and then out again to allow for child direction. Johnson et. al., (1987) offered a continuum of play, referring to the teacher sustaining (observing , commenting), modifying (such as changing areas) and extending play (offering new ideas and props). The main means of active adult influence on play is through modelling. Bandura and Walters, (1959, cited in Mussen et. al., 1979) demonstrated the usefulness of observational learning in children. They found that subjects were more likely to imitate the behaviour of prestigeful then nonprestigeful models.  72  Models who were similar to the subjects themselves had a greater effect on behaviour than dissimilar models. Children were also more likely to imitate the behaviour of models who were rewarded for their actions than those who were punished or not rewarded. Promises of future rewards or past experiences of rewards for accurate imitation were found to increase modelling. Similarly, punishment for past modelling was shown to decrease imitative responses. The relevance of the model or the activity to the child's needs and expectations led to an increase in his readiness to notice certain elements in the model's behaviour which was essential to the learning of the behaviour. Observational learning was seen to be most effective when it involved fairly simple combinations or responses that had already been acquired. In the course of social and cognitive development the child's emotional base becomes less central and identification more diffuse. This observation and copying of others corresponds to him moving outside of his family. Smilansky, (1968) claimed that the child models himself on his own image of the other and therefore there is no direct imitation. In this way he uses the model to develop his own repertoire of behaviours. He copies both the actions, reactions and attitudes of his models (Read & Patterson, 1980). Smilansky, (1968) stressed the need to reinforce his modelling by reacting to his role person. The more the child believes that his enactment of the role is true to the image, the greater his identification need is fulfilled and hence the greater the satisfaction. This has implication for the need for both male and female teachers. By modelling pretend behaviour the teacher creates a climate of acceptance of play which encourages the child. The teacher may model, for example, make-believe transformations as well as verbal communications and interactions. Adult modelling in small play groups has been found to enhance the child's level of fantasy play (Freyberg, 1973). Furthermore, the teacher can 73  model other behaviours critical to play such as problem solving and language (Read & Patterson, 1980). Lieberman, (1977) contended that, children will copy the teacher's approach to, and level of, playfulness. As mentioned, children's modelling is based on sex and behaviours admired, including those that are powerful as well as nurturant. Strom, (1981) referred to a number of important factors for the adults to consider in becoming a play partner. These included lengthening their own attention span; seeing the process of play as inherently enriching and thus not requiring closure or praise; feeling free to express emotions; accepting the child's imagination, spontaneity and slower tempo of decision-making and sharing dominance in play, such as through role reversal. Adults should model greater verbal ability. He argued that, by imitating the child's speech,the adult is not reacting to his imagination. There are a number of ways in which teachers become involved in play. Singer and Singer, (1977) considered the role of "Onlooker" to be the least intrusive. This method refers to the teacher tracking the child's behaviour, gaining a sense of its imaginative complexity. Her mere presence affects the play patterns. Four more active ways of involvement were put forth by Johnson et. al., (1987): Parallel playing which primarily occurs in functional and constructive play, allows the teacher to play side by side with the child. Her presence leads to greater persistence and modelling. Particularly with emotionally disturbed children who "enter and exit" many play scenes, this is a useful way to "reenter" and engage them (Weininger, 1979). Being a "Spokesman for reality" is when play is used as a medium for academic instruction with the adult remaining outside of the play episode and encouraging the child to make the connections to the real world. This may lead to the disruption of the makebelieve (Singer & Singer, 1977). Co-playing occurs when the adult joins an 74  episode in progress of which the child remains in control. The teacher may join by invitation or by assuming an appropriate role. She may ask for information, instructions or respond to the child (Johnson et. al., 1987). Singer & Singer, (1977) cautioned that the teacher should use her voice to simulate roles without becoming too childish as this is distressing to the child. This method, they claimed, is useful for extending the play of children with high levels of play but who may be caught in repetition. It is not nearly as successful with children who have not yet developed the necessary prerequisite cognitive or socio-emotional skills to take on roles such as in socio-dramatic play. It encourages other children to join and leads to greater persistence and rapport. Singer & Singer, (1977) refer to the method of "Stimulator of play" which is similar to co-playing except that the teacher initiates the play by offering concrete storylines. The keynote to successful teacher participation in play is to be able to "nourish but not dominate" (Weininger, 1979), and to be a non-judgemental and imaginative partner. Sutton-Smith & Sutton-Smith, (1974) suggested that, in entering the child's play, the teacher needs to put aside her concerns with excess limitations, routines and her daily cares and to join the adult and child's separate realities. Whilst this will allow for the child's initiative to create representations of his life and to use these as he wishes, it also is the greatest challenge to the adult. Having supported and extended the child's play the teacher needs to be sensitive as to when and how to withdraw. With most emotionally disturbed children, teacher withdrawal terminates the play episode (Krown, 1974). Conflicting opinion exists as to whether the teacher can "train" a disturbed child to play co-operatively or whether the emotionally damaged child needs to reach a certain level of emotional healing before co-operative play can occur. Weininger, (1979) supported the latter but contended that 75  children may engage in dramatic play in a group situation, in parallel or solitary form, with each child playing out his own issues. However, as each one's issue may trigger an emotional reaction in the other, it is important for the teachers to work as a team to be able to free each other to give closer time to a particular child as needed. Johnson et. al., (1987) suggested that social skills are a prerequisite to being a good play partner and that teachers and parents need to model and encourage divirgent thinking and various social and language skills to improve the child's social skills and hence his acceptance by others. Jacobson, (1981, cited in Johnson et. al., 1987) claimed that children move to greater forms of social play through both toy use with peers as well as interaction with peers. Smilansky, (1968) however, found that many children do not have the skills to engage in socio-dramatic play, even when emotionally ready to do so. Researchers point to some specific techniques for helping the child engage in socio-dramatic play. Smilansky, (1968) saw the necessity to engage in play tutoring when systematic observations (using the Socio-dramatic Play Inventory) revealed the play as missing one of the five elements of: role playing, make-believe transformations, social interaction, verbal communication or persistence. She advocated providing the children with common field trip experiences and then teaching the skills to exploit these into the raw material of socio-dramatic play. Christie, (1982) stressed that prior to training, observation and assessment is crucial to determine whether deficiencies really exist or whether different cultural and economic groups merely play differently. Johnson et. al., (1987) mentioned three types of play tutoring used: Outside Intervention, the least intrusive, entails the teacher remaining outside the play episode and encouraging it by making comments and suggestions addressed at  76  the child's roles. In contrast, Inside Intervention can be more disruptive for the adult participates fully, directing the course of the play while modelling high level socio-dramatic behaviour (such as make-believe transformations, social interactions and verbal communication to designate roles). Johnson et. al., (1987) saw tutoring as more complex than co-playing and different in three ways: 0 the adult often initiates play; 2) the adult has at least potential control over the cause of the episode and 3) the children learn new behaviours from the adult. Smilansky, (1968) found these methods highly successful in aiding the child to integrate the information and experiences meaningfully in play. After six to seven days of training, Smilansky, (1968) reported children as starting to play in their own way and no longer imitating adults but participating with them. The third type of play tutoring is that of thematic-fantasy play (Johnson et. al., 1987). This focuses on the children and teacher enacting familiar stories. After a number of enactments the adult is phased out. Props are kept to a minimum to emphasize the plot. This method provides children who have little experience with socio-dramatic play with practice in role-taking and make-believe transformations. Furthermore, by enacting the story, and thereby reconstructing it, this enhances story comprehension (Pellegrini & Galda, 1984). This method is successful only with children who have no sociodramatic play experience. Though it doesn't come from the child's interest, this method may help the adult who had difficulty stepping into play. There has been some question as to whether it is the actual play training or mere adult content that creates these changes. These "encouragement sessions" with children with difficulties have been found to have lasting effects on the child's social and intellectual development (Christie, 1982; Smith, 1983). Saltz & Brodie, (1982) demonstrated that socio-dramatic play training enhances cognitive ability as seen in greater verbal I.Q. By comparing 77  fantasy play training (using make-believe concepts) to non-fantasy skills training (using dominoes, puzzles), an overall increase in both groups was reported but greater co-operative free play was found with those who had fantasy play training. Adult contact was found to be the chief factor in the cognitive gains children make in play tutoring (Christie, 1982). By developing these skills, the child experiences the joys of further competencies. These become a "reservoir of personal resourcefulness and self-esteem" (Johnson et. al., 1987). However, Christie, (1982) pointed out that one of the major disadvantages of play tutoring is the degree of adult structure and control. Garvey, (1977) defined motivation and internal control as critical elements of play. With play training, the danger exists that the activity will cease to be play for the children involved. Hence, again the teacher needs to retain a balance of involvement. It is important for the adult to phase out as soon as the child exhibits the desired behaviours. By stepping out again and allowing the child space, internal control and intrinsic motivation, greater imaginative play occurs (Garvey, 1977). One way of gradually phasing out is for the teacher to switch to the less directive role of co-player. Smilansky, (1968) urged teachers to bear in mind that a lack of knowledge in specific play skills and not inadequate backgrounds, keeps certain children from socio-dramatic play. Furthermore, middle-class observers may have difficulty recognizing the play of other groups (Johnson et. al., 1987). This need for sensitivity to differences is essential when dealing with multicultural groups. It is important to observe play in diverse contexts and to involve the parents. Familiar material should be offered and enough time allowed for children to become acquainted with new materials. Teachers need to structure the play setting, take a more interactive role and provide common experiences and vocabulary before play will take place (Chud et. al. 1985). Garvey, (1977) saw the preparation and serving of foods as a universal theme. 78  Thus, the teacher plays a critical role in fostering the emotionally disturbed child's play. This role demands a wide range of skills, including her own skill at playing. There is a lack of evidence in the literature of studies which look at cultivating these skills in the teacher through an integrated approach. The purpose of this study is to increase the teachers' current play skills to include those necessary to foster the symbolic play of emotionally disturbed children and to decrease play behaviours, defined as limiting children's play. In implementing this training model answers to the following questions are sought: 1) Can a five-week in-service training effect positive change as measured by an increase in those behaviours of the teachers, judged as "Desirable" and by a decrease in those judged as "Less Desirable?" 2) Will the increase in "Desirable" behaviours be greater than the decreases in the "Less Desirable" behaviours? 3) Will those behaviours which measure the teachers' Playfulness and Imaginativeness, change less than the other play behaviours measured, given that these are considered by some theorists as personality traits and thus more stable (Lieberman, 1977) or can change in these behaviours be effected through training as predicted by others (Singer & Singer, 1977)? 4) Will there be a decrease in limit setting during play behaviours as a result of the training? This less desirable behaviour was singled out given that it was the behaviour overall most frequently observed during pre-training. HYPOTHESES It is hypothesized that teachers who undergo an in-service training on facilitating the play of the emotionally disturbed child will modify their play behaviours: 79  1) Those behaviours of the teachers which are judged as "Desirable" will increase and those judged as "Less Desirable" will decrease, as based on the research offered in Chapter 11. 2) The increases in the "Desirable" behaviours will be greater than the decreases in the "Less Desirable" behaviours, given that the Desirable behaviours will receive greater attention and be more emphasized during the in-service training than will the Less Desirable behaviours. 3) The change in those behaviours of the teacher which measure the dimensions of "Playfulness" and "Imaginativeness" will not reach statistical significance, based on Lieberman's (1977) contention that these dimensions become part of adult personality traits and hence are more stable.  A) The teachers' limit setting behaviours will decrease. (Based on Lieberman, (1977) and Aguilar, (1983)'s claims that increased playfulness leads to less adherence to rules.)  80  CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY THE SUBJECTS The subjects are all the four teachers who work in a local treatment centre for emotionally disturbed preschoolers. They vary in qualifications, sex, age and experience. Though three of the four have had training in individual play therapy, none have undergone training for facilitating symbolic play with groups of emotionally disturbed children. Sex, age, qualifications and experience of the subjects are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Sex. Age. Qualifications and Experience of the Subjects Subject  Sex  Age  Qualifications  Experience  Female  27  Child Care  3 years in the centre studied  Diploma  plus 2 years with  B.A. Psychology  disturbed teenagers  Early Childhood  6 years (3 years with  Education Diploma;  typical children and  Female  30  5 years in the centre studied) Male  35  Child Care Diploma  5 years (this was his first year in a group situation)  Female  35  Early Childhood  10 years (this was her first  Education Diploma;  year with emotionally  M.A. Counselling  disturbed children)  Psychology Random sampling of the subjects was not possible due to their small number.  81  THE SETTING The centre is a segregated setting dealing with preschool children with a variety of emotional difficulties ranging from withdrawn to aggressive behaviour. None of the children exhibit severe disorders such as acute autism and all are able, to some degree, to interact socially. The centre offers video-taping and observational facilities and was chosen for the training because the teachers have expressed willingness to learn. Furthermore, it was felt that if change could be effected in a segregated setting, where supervision and limit setting are constant issues and where few children have make-believe playskills, then change could probably be effected in integrated programs. PROCEDURE Preparation: All the subjects were informed, through a preliminary group discussion, as to the nature of the research. Concerns regarding confidentiality and scheduling were addressed. Summaries of the presentations given to the staff and parents (of the children in the centre) regarding the study as well as the consent forms which were signed, are provided in Appendix A and B.  MEASUREMENT: THE INSTRUMENTS USED A.  A Q-5ort Technique was used for self-evaluation of teacher behaviours  in facilitating play. The Q-5ort was chosen as one of the instruments of measurement because it allows for comparative rating. Given that behaviours are interdependent, this measurement enables subjects to rank each item relative to every other. The use of a forced distribution and hence a forced choice 82  method of response (whereby the subjects sort according to a designated order), provides a discriminating instrumentation that the subjects have to be very careful in sorting their extreme choices. The Q-5ort allows for subject "retrospections" on their habitual behaviours (Stephenson, 1953). The Q-Method offers a means of testing theories in that it factor analyses statements which represent a theory (the Q-Sorts). Furthermore, Kerlinger, (1964) demonstrated that the Q-Method allows for analytic possibilities (such as providing clusters of subjects who respond similarly). He further argued that Q-5orting is interesting to subjects. B.  Direct observation, both pre-and post-intervention, was completed by  two independent observers, following a checklist of some of the same behaviours as measured by the Q-Sort. A Copy of this checklist is offered in Appendix G. The two measurements were computed independently, with the postintervention baseline for each teacher being compared to its pre-intervention baseline. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF MEASUREMENT A. THE Q-SORT 1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENT A review of the research provides very little comprehensive information on the measurement of the teacher's behaviour in play. Consequently, the instrument of measurement for this study has been created both out of a modification of various existing scales which assess the play skills of children as well as additional elements drawn from the research regarding the teacher's role in the play process.  83  Singer, (1973) argues that the problem in reliability of observing play behaviour "becomes one not so much of rating or not rating, but rather of choosing appropriate dimensions" (p. 33). While he stressed the need to obtain objective and observable elements, he cautioned against the danger of "trivialization by the microscopic elements that are not likely to be psychologically meaningful" (p. 33). Based on the literature review provided, this study focused on the following dimensions in rating the "habitually" used skills of teachers in facilitating the play of the emotionally disturbed child. The behaviours measured are the behaviours which the teacher exhibited during unstructured, free play time, when the activities do not follow pre-set rules. The following play behaviours of the teachers were measured: "playfulness"; "imaginativeness"; "fantasy"; "acceptance and encouragement of playfulness"; "concentration"; "choice of non-play behaviours"; "level of play"; "language in play"; "structuring of the play space"; "organization of the play time"; "use of materials"; "observation and assessment"; "scaffolding for play"; "levels of intervention" and "methods of intervention." 2. THE DIMENSIONS TO BE MEASURED AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE Q-50RTS PLAYFULNESS Definitions As mentioned in Chapter II, Lieberman, (1977) put forward a conceptualization of playfulness as a "behaviour syndrome" which encompasses humour, joy and spontaneity - three dimensions which, she argued, are linked. For the purpose of this study, Playfulness is operationally defined as skipping, twirling, laughing, singing, vocalizing and voice changing (e.g. to squeek like a 84  mouse). Based on Lieberman's, (1977) scales, it measured the incorporation of unusual elements into play such as using objects for other than their accepted usage (e.g. using a bowl as a hat). The Development of the Playfulness Q-5ort Lieberman"s, (1977) Playfulness Scale was created as consisting of five subscales corresponding to the five behaviour traits of physical spontaneity, manifest joy, sense of humour, social and cognitive spontaneity. In assessing whether behavioural indices of playfulness are comparable at various age levels, Lieberman, (1977) found most consistency in the expression of "manifest joy" and a "sense of humour." She also found that these qualities were more readily tolerated in an adult than was the expression of "physical" and "cognitive spontaneity." Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that scales for these dimensions created for children could, with some modification, be used to assess adults. Furthermore, though adults may express playfulness in a different manner to that of children, the teacher of the very young, needs to express it in such a way that it may be recognized, understood, and appreciated by the young child. Part of the training model put forward in this study aims at helping the teacher, as an adult, to be playful in a child setting. This gives credence to using scales based on those designed to measure levels of playfulness in children. Thus, the Q-Sort statements in this study are derived from Lieberman's, (1977) Playfulness Scale, with some modification to suit adults. Certain items which are considered to be child-specific have been omitted. The items have been rephrased in statement format to suit the Q-Sort methodology. Based on her continuum of playfulness, some statements reflecting a less playful attitude are included. 85  Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Playfulness in Play 1.  To measure spontaneous physical movement in play. (This refers to physical movement which does not result from activities with pre-set rules.) - Engaging in physical movement such as twirling (a quick turnaround of the whole body); skipping (rapid movement of the feet, alternating as they touch the ground) and jumping (both feet leave the ground simultaneously). (All refer to the body in standing position.) - Sitting down  2.  To measure joy in play - Vocalizing or singing to accompany an activity, e.g. "choo, choo train." - Changing her voice in order to imitate. For example, any animal (e.g. mouse) or the sounds of an inanimate object (e.g. a train) or another character (e.g. a baby). - Using her own voice (when in role-play).  3.  To measure a sense of Humour in Play - Laughing  4  To measure Social & Cognitive Spontaneity - Creating pretend situations through verbalization, e.g. "This (wood) is a ladder." - Creating pretend situations through imitated actions, e.g. Pretending to chop wood. - Using objects for other than assumed purpose, e.g. A plate becomes a flying saucer. - Using objects for assumed purpose, e.g. A hat is used as a hat.  86  - Dropping play role and returning to being the teacher when new children enter the play group. - Incorporating new children into the play group through the voice of play role (by staying in the role of the assumed character). e.g. "I'm Doctor, X. Welcome!" Q-5ort Statements to Measure the Level of Teacher's Acceptance and Encouragement of Playfulness (Based on Aguilar, (1983)'s list of recommendations for creating a playful atmosphere.) - Incorporating the arts (music, dance, drama, arts & crafts) into play. - Verbally encouraging the child to explore material, e.g. "Let's see what the play-dough can do." - Placing clear limitations on the use of materials. e.g. No play-dough in house corner. (Does not refer to those related to safety concerns. - Completing the child's activity for him if he is struggling, e.g. Building a space ship. IMAGINATIVENESS AND FANTASY OF MAKE-BELIEVE PLAY Definitions Singer, (1973) assessed the element of Imaginativeness by the introduction into play of pretend elements such as changes in time, place and character. He claimed that it is difficult to discern to what extent play includes elements of imagery and internal response. Imagery, was defined by Singer, (1975) as "our ability to produce again in our mind a response to some stimulation to our sensory organs that occurred in the past...even when the original object that produced the sensation is no longer in the environment" (pg 87  22). For the purpose of this study, "imaginativeness in make-believe" is defined as the introduction, through motor actions or verbalizations of pretend elements such as changes in time, place and character into play and also by the use of toys and materials in other than the generally accepted use (e.g. a block becomes a truck). As the behaviours which measure these are the same as those which measure cognitive social spontaneity and playfulness, the measurement of these will be used as an assessment of both categories. However, imaginativeness is also defined by the organization of the makebelieve play (such as designating roles and planning a storyline), by the use of imagery as descriptors and by the teacher addressing the child by his role name. Klinger, (1971, cited in Lieberman, 1977) stated t h a t i n the course of fantasy, a person works over, recombines and sometimes reorganizes the information often creatively" (p. 109). Fantasy is defined, for this study, as the distance the play storyline has from the child's reality ie. The less connection the play idea has to the child's daily life, the higher is the degree of fantasy; such as a journey to never-never land vs. going to school. The Development of the Q-Sorts to Measure Imaginativeness and Fantasy in Play Most studies of Imaginative and Fantasy tendencies in adults involve the use of the Rorschach Inkblots or Weiskopff, (1950)'s Thematic Apperception Tests, (cited in Singer, 1973), which show those elements that are introduced which were not directly given by the objective stimulus. Other methods include the use of expressive drawings, such as those used by Winnicott, (1971, cited in Singer, 1973). Singer, (1973) developed various scales to assess levels of Imagination and Fantasy, based on direct and systematic observation of children in 88  spontaneous play. Regarding the element of fantasy, he cautioned that for most children make-believe reflects their immediate reality for their fantasy is closely related to their lives. Based on Singer's, (1973) Scales of Imaginativeness and Fantasy respectively, two sets of Q-Sort items have been created to measure imaginativeness and fantasy. Again, these are modified to suit an adult assessment and are phrased in statement format. Singer's ranking of 0 to 5 indicated a ranking of low to high levels of imaginativeness. To assess habitually used skills, items from all ranked are included with the aim of the training being to increase the frequency of those ranking as higher in imaginativeness and fantasy. Q-Sort Statements to Measure Imaginativeness in Make-Believe Play - Playing without planning or organizing the play activities and role play with the children, e.g. Designating roles. - Organizing pretend activities and role playing by designating roles and planning the episode with the children. - Using unusual labels and/or imagery, e.g. "Look at the mudpuddle in the sky." - Using concrete labels. e.g. "That is a hole in the sand." - Addressing the child by his role character's name when in play, e.g. "Fire-fighter, come here." - Addressing the child by his real name when in play. These statements are graded from least to most imaginativeness in play.  Q-5ort Statements to Measure Fantasy in Make-Believe Play - Playing out events experienced in child's life. 89  e.g. Going to school. - Playing out event which exist in reality but not in child's personal life. e.g. Going to get gas. - Playing out stories which are completely fantasy, even if they are sparked by a real stimulus. e.g. The doll goes on an adventure to "never-never" land. CONCENTRATION Singer, (1973) considered the measure of concentration as important for, though it is not directly related to make-believe, it is a cognitive consequence of imaginative play. Thus, he measured it as a separate factor to the imaginativeness of play. The measure of concentration was seen by Singer, (1973) to reflect the "individual's capacity to unfold a relatively organized and extended sequence of activities without becoming excessively dependent on each new stimulus" (p. 39). For this study, it will be seen as absorption with a play activity so that distractions do not disrupt the process. It is measured by the teacher's persistence in make-believe for a specified time period dispite disruptions. Q-Sort Statements to Measure Concentration in Play - Staying in make-believe play for 2-5 minutes. (Refers to situation when no supervisory duty is called upon.) - Remaining in make-believe play for at least 5-10 minutes. (Refers to situations when no supervisory duty is called upon.) THE TEACHER'S OBSERVED CHOICE OF NON-PLAYING BEHAVIOURS This refers to those activities, other than directly related to play, in which the teacher engages during the unstructured or "free play" blocks of time 90  in the program. These may include monitoring or supervisory duties, (as may be seen in limit setting), or in tidying. It must be noted that there is no specific role designation by the program to any of the teachers. The aim of the training was to lower the frequency of these behaviours as they were identified (pretraining) by the teachers, the director as well as, by informal observations, of the teachers' behaviours, to hamper teacher interaction in the children's play. Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Observed Choice of Non-Play Behaviours - Keeping the room organized and tidy by picking up, cleaning or making sure the children do so. - Watching in order to make sure the limits are maintained, e.g. That no-one leaves the room. THE TEACHER'S OBSERVED LEVEL OF PLAY Based on Rubin's (1978) definitions of Parten, (1933) and Piaget's, (1945) play categories, the teacher's level of play was assessed in terms of social interaction and cognition. This study recognizes that the level of social play, when working with children with emotional difficulties, is very dependent on their emotional readiness to engage with other children. However, by engaging in parallel or co-operative play, teachers can model higher levels of play and act as a bridge between the children. The Cognitive levels of play were defined by Rubin, (1978) as: 1•  Functional Play - Play which involves repetitive muscle movements with or without objects, e.g. running and jumping, gathering and dumping or manipulating materials.  91  2.  Constructive Play - Play which involves the use of objects (e.g. Lego, Tinkertoys) or materials, (e.g. sand, play-dough) to make something.  3.  Dramatic Play - Play which involves role-playing and/or make-believe transformations, e.g. pretending to be a parent or monster; and/or pretending to drive a car (arm movements) or give an injection with a pencil (object use). Use of miniature versions of real objects (e.g. toy cars) is only considered as dramatic play if it involves make-believe transformations and/or role-playing.  4.  Games with Rules - Play which involves recognition and acceptance of and conformity with, pre-established rules, e.g. tag, hockey. Social Levels:  1.  Solitary Play - Plays alone with material different from those of children within speaking distance; no conversation.  2.  Parallel Play - Plays with toys or engages in activities similar to those of others who are in close proximity; however, there is no attempt to play with them.  3.  Co-operative Play - Playing with others; roles may or may not be assigned. Socio-Dramatic Play refers to dramatic play in a group situation and, as  defined by Smilansky, (1968), involves: (i) role-playing (e.g. being a bear), and the (ii) the communication of this role through verbal declarations ("rm the mommy."), (iii) persistence of the role-play for most of 10 minutes, (iv) the interaction of a least two people in connection with the play episode and (v) make-believe transformations with objects (certain objects are used as substitutes for real objects e.g. a pencil for an injection); actions (pretending to hammer) and verbal descriptions (e.g. "we're on a jet.").  92  Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Observed Level of Play - Manipulating objects, e.g. emptying containers, pouring, filling. (No element of make-believe involved) - Building and constructing, e.g. Lego, cutting and pasting. (No element of make-believe involved) - Creating a make-believe miniature world. e.g. With sand and people. (Does not involve role playing.) - Playing a storyline with children, taking on roles, e.g. Fire-fighter - Playing games with pre-set rules, e.g. Lotto, hockey - Playing with one child at a time. - Playing with more than one child at a time. THE TEACHER'S USE OF LANGUAGE IN PLAY According to Garvey, (1977) language is an essential factor in the child's ability to engage in social play, as it is used to structure and organize the play episode. Consequently, it is important for the teacher to enrich the child's language. Strom, (1981) stressed that adults need to model higher level speech than the child and to refrain from imitating the child. Furthermore, language which is rich in imagery encourages the child's imaginative powers. Directions (as opposed to open-ended questions), are seen to block language development (Garvey, 1977). The teacher's positive use of language includes the use of a dramatic voice; and imagery (e.g. "Listen to the leaves whisper."). These behaviours are measured by the Q-5orts under Playfulness and Imaginativeness. The less desirable behaviours under this dimension include repeating the child's words and offering structured language exercises.  93  Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Use of Language in Play - Giving the child directions. - Repeating the child's words and/or verbally mirror his actions, e.g. "You're washing the dishes." - Offering structured language exercises. THE TEACHER'S STRUCTURING OF THE PLAY SPACE As the literature review shows, the physical space is crucial to the development of play. Nicolaysen, (in Strom, 1981) stressed the role of the teacher in this. Specifically, the teacher's structuring of space refers to her allowing for privacy by creating quiet, cozy spaces and her re-arranging of the space to accommodate the play. As it is difficult to assess each teacher's ability to fully structure the playroom for this is often a given, the teacher's use of different areas of the room as play-space is included under this dimension.  Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Structuring of the Play Space - Moving furniture to accommodate play, e.g. To create cosy spaces; to widen areas. - Leaving furniture in place, to encourage play in fixed areas. - Using different areas of the room as play space. - Using the same area of the room as play space. THE TEACHER'S ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAY TIME This includes, for purposes of measurement, the teacher's use of the play medium to facilitate transitions between activities and her flexibility to adjust the program schedule.  94  Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Organization of the Play Time - Incorporating transitions into play. e.g. "Drive your car to the restaurant for snack." - Cutting play to allow for a smooth flow of the day's schedule, e.g. "It's nearly lunchtime, so we need to put away..." THE TEACHER'S USE OF MATERIALS IN PLAY This includes the teacher's use of a variety of materials to create play ideas. Her use of materials in unusual ways is measured under the Playfulness dimension. Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Use of Materials in Play - Using different materials to create a play idea, e.g. Boxes, dress-up clothes, blocks. - Using the same materials in play. e.g. Lego Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Observation and Assessment of the Child's Play - Including the child's concerns, interests and strengths in play, e.g. Playing baby games, with the child who needs nurturing. - Removing the child from play to clean up a previous activity. THE TEACHER'S PREPARATION OF A "SCAFFOLDING" FOR PLAY The research offered in the literature review (Singer, 1973; Freyberg, 1973; Wolfgang, 1977 and Johnson et. al., 1987), points to a need with emotionally disturbed children, to prepare the ground for play by enhancing their ideas.  95  This includes stimulating the senses and imagination of the children (e.g. through visualizations and stories, open-ended questions and sensory exercises of taste and smell); providing common experiences (e.g. field trips to the fire station) and and increasing their self-esteem (e.g. through body-awareness games). Q-5ort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Preparation of a "Scaffolding" for Play - Asking open-ended questions, e.g. "What happens if...?" - Offering sensory experiences of smell, taste and sound. - Encouraging the child to visualize (to close his eyes and "see" a picture) and to verbally share this. - Helping the children enact in play past f ieldtrips or stories. - Playing body-awareness games. e.g. Mirroring facial expressions; relaxation breathing. THE TEACHER'S LEVEL OF INTERVENTION IN PLAY This does not refer to the specific methods by which the teacher intervenes in play but rather to the different degrees of intervention of the teacher herself in play. The levels of intervention may be broadly categorized under a number of general headings which are identified in the research as: Onlooker Behaviour - (Singer & Singer, 1977), which refers to the least intrusive and involves sitting on the side and tracking the play behaviour though the observation of themes, language, role shifts etc. The teacher is silent.  96  Outside Intervention - (Christie, 1982), also involves remaining outside the play situation but in this instance, the teacher suggests, comments, directs, clarifies and questions in order to extend the play ideas. These may be through nondirective statements whereby the teacher verbally mirrors the actions of the child (e.g. "You're washing.") or through direct suggestions. Inside Intervention - (Christie, 1982) involves the teacher entering play by assuming a role. The teacher may either join the child's on-going play episode ("Co-Playing," Singer & Singer, 1977) or may initiate play ("Stimulator of Play," Singer & Singer, 1977) by the use of stories or props or by assuming a role and inviting the children to join her. Play Tutoring - which may involve a number of different techniques. Some may be in the form of small groups or individual work (as advocated by Weininger, (1979) and Wolfgang, (1977)) as a preparation for play. Saltz & Brodie, (1982) suggest the use of familiar stories as a springboard to socio-dramatic play (Thematic-fantasy training). Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Level of Intervention in Play - Watching the child's play from the side, without commenting, suggesting or taking on a role. - Watching the child's play from the side, commenting and suggesting, e.g. "Doesn't your car need a road?" - Joining the child's on-going play by taking on a role, e.g. "Mr. Storekeeper, do you sell eggs?" - Initiating play. e.g. By taking on a role and involving the child (I'm the fire-fighter, can you be the driver?") or by telling a story using miniature table toys.  97  THE TEACHER'S METHODS OF INTERVENTION IN PLAY This, in contrast to the levels of intervention, does not refer to the degree of intrusion of the teacher into the child's play but to the specific techniques which she uses in enriching and facilitating play. These include some of those recommended by the research: following the child's lead; incorporating the child's interests in play; adding to the storyline by taking on a role; offering the children ideas for a continuation of the storyline when stepping out of play, maintaining play by involving other teachers; maintaining the element of make-believe by teaching and setting limits through play and involving other children by widening the storyline or by adding props. In creating the Q-5orts to measure this dimension, additional methods are added. These include stepping aside to teach (e.g. "How many?"; "What colour?"); and to set limits, thereby breaking the fantasy spell. Using praise (e.g. "That's great work!"), is also seen as hampering play for according to Strom, (1981), the child experiences intrinsic satisfaction from play and thus does not need praise. By praising behaviours in play, he argues, adults are judging and selectively reinforcing certain behaviours. This controls, rather than reinforces, creative behaviour. Further, he sees "praising adults" as being "easily distracted from play" (p. 97). Another undesirable behaviour is when the teacher leaves children to continue play alone for, since emotionally disturbed children have limited ideas for play, the play disintegrates. Removing the children from the play to clean-up, is seen as an undesirable behaviour as it breaks their already limited concentration in play. Q-Sort Statements to Measure the Teacher's Methods of Intervention in Play - Widening play to involve others, e.g. "Let's go to the park where (X) is." 98  - Adding to the storyline by taking on a role. e.g. Being the zoo-keeper, when child plays being a tiger. - Adding ideas for a continuation of the storyline when moving out of play. e.g. "Why don't you cook supper?" - Teaching through play. e.g. "Bring six diapers for the baby." - Setting limits through play. e.g. "Superman, you can't jump here!" - Following the child's lead and his ideas. - Including the child's concerns, interests and strengths in play. e.g. Playing baby games with the child who needs nurturing.  i  - Stepping out of play to teach, e.g. "Can you count..." - Stepping out of play to set limits. e.g. "If you can't clean it up, we'll have to end this game." - Using praise (comments directed at the child expressing approval or pleasure and contingent on an action of the child), e.g. "That's terrific!" - Leaving the children to continue the storyline by themselves (when exiting play). - Involving other teachers to maintain play, e.g. "X, can you join our team?" - Using props to extend play to other children, e.g. Two bowls of food. (One for each child.) - Removing the child from play to clean-up a previous activity. Certain items provide measurements of more than one dimension as some of these are so closely connected, for example Imaginativeness and Playfulness (Lieberman, 1977). Originally it was thought that it would be possible to 99  divide the teachers* skills into two distinct categories, one being the teachers own play behaviour and the other her techniques in intervention in the child's play. However, these two sets of behaviours are too intertwined to be artificially separated. Appendix E provides a list of the dimensions and the items which measure each. The complete list of the Q-Sorts is found in Appendix C. The scale for each dimension includes a range of behaviours which are desirable, based on the research offered in Chapter II. These are outlined in Appendix F These items, which are categorized as "desirable" are drawn from the research offered in Chapter II, which demonstrated their importance In facilitating the play of emotionally disturbed children. Those items categorized as "less desirable" were created from the antithesis of the desirable items as well as from pre-training observations of behaviours which were being used by the teachers and which, based on the research, were seen to limit play. Three items (measuring Fantasy) were not categorized as either "desirable" or "less desirable" in that research shows that the level of fantasy is dependent on the child's age and development. These behaviours were categorized as "Neutral." Seventy items were created, each phrased as statements of behaviours and each referring to teacher behaviours while in free play. The 70 items were typed on cards, one item to a card. Each item was preceded by a number from I to 70, for identification in analysis. The dimensions under which the behaviours were listed, were not indicated. All the cards were standardized to eliminate a format bias. 3. PILOT STUDY A pilot study was conducted on two independent subjects with similar professional and academic background to those subjects being studied. Based 100  on this, some changes were made to ensure clarity of the statements as well as the time and format of the Q-Sort. (Free play was clearly defined; examples were added to the Q-Sort items and suggestions for completing the task were given - see "Hint" Appendix D). The subjects took approximately forty minutes to complete the task. The reliability of the Q-Sort was established by having the subjects re-sort and through an interview to assess if the results truly reflected their behaviours. The results supported the contention of Kerlinger, (1963) that the Q-Sort is stable (90% for reliability). 4. STUDY ADMINISTRATION i) Pre-Training During the week prior to the onset of the Training, the Q-Sort was administered to each of the four subjects, on an individual basis by the researcher. The subjects were naive as to the hypotheses and specific focus of the study. The subjects were asked to rank the behaviours (written on separate cards), into 9 categories, according to frequency of use. The categories were labelled from ("A" to "I," with "A" being most frequently used and "I" being least frequently used). By specifying the number of cards which could be placed in each rating category on the continuum, the subjects were asked to carefully weigh and assess the frequency of their habitually used behaviours. The ranking was done according to a quasi-normal distribution. The instructions given to the subjects regarding this Q-Sort, are presented in Appendix D. ii) Post-Training During the week after the completion of the training (which spanned a five-week period), the Q-Sort ratings were completed again by each subject. The teachers had no knowledge of the results of the pre-intervention 101  evaluations. This was followed by a personal interview to verify their sorting, to check on any other factors which may have a bearing on their choices, or any relevant skills which they use habitually and which were not on the Q-Sort and to note frustrations they may have had with the evaluation. B. THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION 1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENT Checklist: A selection of 51 of the Q-Sort items appeared on a checklist for the direct observation of each teacher by the independent observers. Items were chosen to represent each of the dimensions listed. In some instances, certain items were seen as appropriate to a self evaluation but were considered too subjective for indepent observation. A number of pairs of items were amalgamated. In some cases, the "less desirable" behaviour was omitted as it was thought that frequency changes in the "desirable" could be seen as a measurement of changes in the "less desirable." Appendix G presents the checklist items, including a description of how they were selected. 2. STUDY ADMINISTRATION i) Pre-Training Direct observation by two independent observers took place during the two weeks preceding the onset of the training. The observations were made from an observation room through a one-way window into the large playroom which was customarily used during free play time. During each observation three teachers and seven children were present in the room. The one-way windows permitted direct observation of the teachers and children at play. Observers could hear through microphones in the room. Each teacher was observed by both observers simultaneously on two separate days, each for thirty minutes. Each thirty minute segment was 102  divided into six 5-minute segments, during each of which 17; 17 and 17 behaviours were observed twice respectively. (5 minutes: behaviours 1 to 17; 5 minutes: behaviours 18 to 33; 5 minutes: behaviours 34 to 51. This pattern was repeated.) The termination of each segment was indicated by a buzzer. Oneminute pauses between each segment allowed for the behaviours to be checked. By the end of the two week period, each teacher had been directly observed for sixty minutes. This direct observation was backed by a thirtyminute observation of each teacher on video-tape. This video-tape segment was filmed through the one-way window. The subjects were unaware that they were being filmed. The video-tape showed the same teachers and children present in the same room and at the same time of day (though on a different day) as occurred during the direct observation. ii) Post-Training For two weeks immediately following the training, independent observation was done according to the same time and check-list format as in the pre-intervention measurement. The observers followed a checklist of 51 behaviours drawn from the Q-5orts (see Appendix G). During the observations, various factors were controlled for including: - the same teachers and children in the room - the same basic structure of the room and availability of materials - the same time of day and days of the week - the same observers 3. RELIABILITY CHECKS The independent observers were trained by the researcher in the observation of the behavioural items prior to the formal evaluations through the use of video-tape until inter-observer reliability was 85%. 103  During the actual observations the observers had no contact (neither spoken or eye-to-eye). They stood fairly apart so as to minimize awareness of each others' recording. The observations were started and completed simultaneously. Average inter-observer reliability was 87.6%. Appendix J provides a list of each item and its average reliability. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING MODEL The development of the training model was based on the suggestions outlined by Wood et. al., (1981). These included five stages. Though Wood et. al. referred to these stages in relation to a five year plan, they were adapted to this training model. The stages are: i) A Readiness Stage: which involves teacher commitment to new professional behaviours. In this study, this was achieved in open ongoing discussions with the teachers over a four month period, preceding the onset of the training. ii) The Planning Stage: which involves the development of goals. Wood et. al., (1981) based these on research as well as a needs assessment derived from both teacher and independent observations. The needs assessment for this study was developed from unstructured observations done by the experimenter; informal discussion with the teachers and consultation with the Director. iii) The Training Stage: which refers to translating the plans into practice. For the purposes of this study, this took place through a series of five workshops, covering a five week period. iv) The Implementation Stage: which ensures that training becomes a part of ongoing professional behaviours. This was provided for, during the five week period, through daily on-site support. Wood et. al. (1981) stressed the need for constant monitoring to maintain behaviours. This is being done  104  through ongoing weekly discussions based, where possible, on observation of video-tapes of the teacher's work. Thus in creating this training model, there was an attempt to address most of those elements, which based on the research offered in Chapter II, are seen to create effective in-service training. The training occurred over an extended period of time; daily support was built in for implementation, through planning, debriefing and model teaching; the content was based on a needs assessment and evaluation was based on teacher-behaviour change which was measured by both self and independent evaluation. All sessions offered a mixture of lecture-presentation and discussion and were based on research and theory. THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOPS: The series of the Workshops were planned as building blocks, starting with a broad theoretical basis. They offered a mixture of formal presentations, group discussions, experiential exercises and video-tape analysis. At all times, the theory was presented in relation to case-specific examples. From the second week, each workshop began with a review of the past week and ended with issues and questions to consider in the coming week. An outline of the content of each Workshop follows. The overall aim of the training was to broaden the teachers' knowledge of the play process so that certain skills would be used more and others less. These skills were measured by the observable behaviours outlined in the self and independent checklists.  105  AN OUTLINE OF THE CONTENT OF EACH WORKSHOP Week i  Time Frame:  Two Hours (1300 to 1500)  Title:  "The Building Blocks": Understanding play and the teachers' role in this process  This workshop offered an understanding of the development and value of play in general, as well as the specific nature of the emotionally disturbed child's play and the role of the teacher as facilitator of the process. This was given as a conceptual background to the practical applications and specific examples of later sessions. An Overview of Workshop I A. The developmental levels of play and their correspondence to the child's overall growth: Following a chart, a presentation was given on the social and cognitive levels of play (outlined in Chapter III) and their interrelationship; as well as how these feed into and off the child's overall development. B. The Value of Play: Based on an observation of a video-tape showing typical children at play, the teachers were asked to note and discuss how play enhances cognitive, physical, social, emotional and creative growth. C. The Play Life of the Emotionally Disturbed Child: Through a discussion of a video-tape of the children in the treatment centre, the characteristics of the emotionally disturbed child's play was outlined. Some hypotheses were presented regarding the source of these play characteristics, related to the specific children in the  centre.  D. The Teacher's Role: An overview of the teacher's role as facilitator of play was presented. 106  E. Issues to Consider in the Following Week: The teachers were asked to consider, over the following week, all those issues which prevent them from playing.  Week II Time Frame:  Five Hours (900 to 1200 & 1330 to 1530)  Title:  "Finding Peter Pan": Stimulating teacher playfulness, imaginativeness and fantasy.  This workshop was aimed at fostering the teachers' playfulness imaginativeness and fantasy and his/her encouragement of this in the child. These elements were later measured by the behaviours defined under each of these categories in the Methodology section. The basic premise of this workshop was that if the teachers could understand their own blocks at play and if they could regain a sense of their own childhood play experience, (including favourite or disliked play areas, toys and playmates) they would be more able to play, have a resource of play ideas and also an understanding of the child's play. An Overview of Workshop II 900 to 1200: A. The Value of Make-Believe and of the Adult Playing Alongside the Child: This was presented by the trainer. B. Fostering a Sense of Playfulness. Imaginativeness and Fantasy: (i) Through a discussion, teachers identified the barriers to their play. These included personal as well.programming blocks.  107  (ii) The trainer presented research on playfulness, imaginativeness and fantasy, including techniques for enhancing these capacities. C. Fostering the Child's Capacity for Make-Believe and Fantasy: Some techniques were presented on enhancing the child's makebelieve and fantasy. The teachers (in pairs), prepared some specific ideas for implementation. D. Relaxation Exercises: i) The importance of relaxation to play was discussed. ii) Some techniques for relaxation were presented by the trainer. iii) A group relaxation exercise was offered in the playroom (which was the setting of the study). This was followed by: iv) The teachers playing in the playroom. v) A discussion followed on their own play styles and preferences. E. Entering the World of the Child: 1) A video-tape of a typical child allowed the teachers to observe the behaviours and interests of a child. ii) The teachers explored the play room in ways different to their customary approach. iii) Through the sharing of old photographs and toys the teachers looked at how their own early childhood play patterns effect their present play. 1330 to 1530: F. Observation of Play: Following a video-tape and based on observation forms, the teachers assessed the play of one of the children in the centre. This assessment was related back to the hypothetical causes of emotionally disturbed children's play, offered in Workshop I.  108  G. Issues to Consider in the Following Week: i) To look at enhancing the children's capacity for fantasy, the teachers were asked to select two or three of the ideas discussed and to experiment with their implementation. ii) To become more aware of their own play, the teachers were asked to note the extent of their own role play; voice changes and vocalizations; laughter and spontaneous movement; use of unusual imagery and their allowance for this in the child. iii) The teachers were asked to note those issues which hamper their own play. iv) The teachers were asked to consider in what ways they inhibit fantasy. (Such as, how much they can allow for the child's control and how much they can tolerate deviance.) To facilitate the examination of these elements and the implementation of new ideas, the teachers were given a form to follow on a daily basis for the week between Workshops II and III. The questions on this form were designed to make the teachers focus on specific behaviours and ideas tried and to consider what aided or hindered the process as well as what could have helped. The aim was also to have the teachers focus specifically on their own play. An example fo this form is found in Appendix K. The form provided a record charting the ideas tried and a picture of which personal and/or programming issues limited play. This led to very focussed and sequential planning of specific tasks. During the first few days, the teachers were unclear as to the exact nature of the tasks required of them. This was facilitated by the trainer defining the daily task, leading the discussions and modelling some play ideas with the children.  109  Week 111 Time Frame:  Two Hours (1300 to 1500)  Title:  "Creating the World of Oz": Creating the physical play space: monitoring the group and structuring the play time.  This workshop looked at all the issues the teacher needs to consider as part of a "scaffolding" (Johnson et. al., 1987) or preparation for play. These included the creation of the physical space, the choice of materials used, the scheduling of the playtime and the monitoring of the group composition as well as some ideas for preparing the child for play. Effectiveness of this section of the training was measured by the changes in the behaviours outlined under each of these categories in the Methodology section. An Overview of Workshop III A. Brief Review of the Past Week: This provided the teachers with an opportunity to share their past week's experiences. B. The Physical Space: i) The trainer presented research on the arrangement of play areas. ii) The teachers explored the play room to look at possible changes or additions. C. The Materials: i) The trainer presented research on the use of play materials, including issues such as structured or unstructured props, guns, sex differences, the therapeutic value of toys; and the use of prop boxes. ii) The teachers explored the play materials to look at changes or additions.  110  D. Time Scheduling: i) The trainer presented research findings on the subject. ii) The teachers discussed the current time schedules used including possible changes. E. Group Composition: Relating the theory to the specific children in the program, issues such as the emotional readiness of the child; the compatability of the children's needs and behaviours, interests and strengths as well as factors such as age and group size were discussed. F. Ideas to Prepare the Child for Play: i) The trainer presented some of the research ideas on preparing the child for play including field trips, the use of stories, fllmstrips and puppets, language enrichment, relaxation exercises for the children and outlets for emotional and creative expression. ii) ln pairs, the teachers prepared a number of ideas for implementation' during the following week. G. Issues to Consider in the Following Week: The teachers were asked, during the daily "debriefing" sessions, to consider: 1) How to incorporate or redirect children from an existing play situation. ii) How to end play to facilitate transitions. iii) Which materials are most/least used. iv) What areas facilitate/limit play.  Week IV Time Frame:  Two Hours (1300 to 1500)  Title:  "Becoming a Play Partner": Methods of teacher intervention in play.  This workshop looked at some of the principles and methods of teacher involvement in the child's play. The aim of this workshop was to increase the teachers' skills in intervening in the child's play, at assessing when to Pe more directive and at knowing how to sustain and extend the play. Again, the behaviours which were used to assess the effectiveness of this workshop, are offered in the Methodology section under the categories of "Levels and Methods of Intervention." An Overview of Workshop IV A. Brief Review of the Week: Through questions and discussion, the experiences of the past week were shared. B. Why Involvement in Play?: A brief recap from Workshop II. C. General Principles for Involvement in Play: The trainer presented these, based on specific theories and research. D. Levels of Involvement: The trainer, using a chart, presented the levels of involvement raised in the research including: Onlooker; Co-playing; Play tutoring (Outside Intervention, Inside Intervention, Thematic Fantasy Play). E. The Continuum of Involvement: The teachers observed video-tapes of themselves at play and were asked to analyse their level of involvement and to offer possible alternatives. 112  F. Methods/Techniques of Involvement: Through a combination of presentation and discussion, some specific ideas for teacher involvement in play were raised. G. Incorporating the Therapeutic Element: The teachers shared their views on how the therapeutic component may be incorporated into group play. H. Issues to Consider in the Following Week: The teachers were asked, during the daily "debriefing" sessions, to consider: i) Does teacher intervention inhibit fantasy? ii) Can the children's different needs be balanced within group play? iii) How to balance being a play partner and facilitator.  Week V Time Frame:  Two Hours (1300 to 1500)  Title:  "Beyond the Stumbling Blocks": Integrating the specific aspects of the training.  This workshop provided an integration of all the past sessions. An overview of the series of workshops was presented, showing how the aspects interrelate. The aim of this exercise was both to tie together all the learning over the past five weeks, as well as to focus the teachers on the very practical issues involved with the implementation of ideas. An Overview of Workshop V A. Looking Back: The trainer presented a summary of the past four training sessions.  113  B. integrating tfrelfiaming; In pairs, the teachers prepared a theme for play, based on a structured form. C. Looking Forward: A discussion of issues and questions considered over the past five weeks and those still to be considered. D. The End...or the Beginning?: The form provided in Appendix L, was given to the teachers as a focus for themselves, as a team, in the Implementation of play ideas. The main purpose of this form was for the teachers as a team to consider, on a weekly basis one or two play ideas used as well as ways to change and enrich these for the future.  114  CHAPTER IV RESULTS Two sets of data were obtained: pre and post scores on the Q-Sort and pre and post observation measures. 1. PRE AND POST SCORES OBTAINED ON THE Q-SORT The pre and post Q-Scores (see Appendix M) were subjected to factor analysis. The results are shown in Tables 2 and 3.  Table 2 The Intercorrelate Profiles: Pre-Test XI (A) X2 (B) X3 (C) X4(D)  XJ_(A) 1.00000 0.21488 0.20248 0.30579  X2(B)  X3(C)  1.00000 0.0240 0.27273  1.00000 1.00000 0.19008  X4(D)  .00000  Greatest similarity in sorting is seen between subjects A and D and least between B and C. Subject C had lowest correlation with any other subject.  115  Table 3 The Intercorrelate Profiles: Post-Test XI (A) X2 (B) X3 (C) X4 (D)  X_(A) 1.00000 0.60744 0.30992 0.53306  X2(B)  X3(C)  X4(D)  1.00000 0.02066 0.63636  1.00000 0.16116  1.00000  Greatest similarity in sorting is seen between subject B and D. Again subject C had the lowest correlation with any other subject. The correlations (or similarities between how they view themselves) are stronger on the posttest than the pre-test. The term Family or Group is used in Q-Methodolgy to designate those subjects with similar patterns of sorting among its subjects. The subjects within each family resemble each other in that, statistically, there is no significant difference in how they view themselves. Statically, Subject C had the lowest correlation with any other subject and hence formed a separate group. Results yielded two families or groups accounting, both pre and post, for all the subjects and for 81% of the variance. Family 1 - Subjects, A, B & D Family 2 - Subject C  116  Tables 4 and 5 show the pre and post Rotated Factor Matrixes. Table 4  Fl ZKA) Z2(B) Z3(C) Z4(D)  Rotated Factor Matrix: Pre-Test  0.61 179 0.79344 0.06836 0.70192  £2 0.38864 0.31830 0.89733 0.27217  Table 5  ZKA) Z2(B) Z3(C) Z4(D)  Fl  Rotated Factor Matrix: Post-Test  F2 0.35087 0.09345 0.98060 0.08472  0.78455 0.90574 0.065657 0.84583  Subject B had the strongest membership to Family 1 (ie: subject B sort was most representative of Family 1) on both the pre- and post-sorts. The Z-Scores (standardized scores) of the items for each Family (type) were rank-ordered for frequency of use. These were graphed, differentiating between "Desirable" and "Less Desirable" behaviours, based on the structure which was built into the Q-Sort. The following figures (1 and 2) illustrate the pre and post Z-Scores for Family 1 and 2.  117  a) Desirable Behaviours Figure 1 illustrates the pre and post Z-Scores of Desirable behaviours for Family 1 and Figure 2 the pre and post Z-Scores for Family 2.  F R E Q U E N C Y  i  i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i  134 6 7 8 9  13 18 25 31 35 42 45 50 52 54 58 60 62 64 70  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (desirable) • PRE Fig. 1.  oPOST  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Desirable Behaviours Tor Family 1  118  3.0 2.4  1  I  I  I  I  I I  I  I  I  I I I  I  I I  I I  I  I  I I  I I  I  I I  I I  I  I  M  I  I  I I I  13 46 7 8 9 13 18 25 31 35 42 45 50 52 54 58 60 62 64 70 BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (desirable) oPRE Fig. 2.  DPOST  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Desirable Behaviours for Family 2  The results of the pre and post Z-Scores for behaviours labelled Desirable behaviours are illustrated in Table 6.  119  Table 6 Pre and Post Z-Scores of Desirable Behaviours per Family Family 1 Item 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 18« 19 25 30 • 31 34 35 40 42 44 45 48 50 51 52 53 54 57 58 • 59 60 61 62 63 64 69 • 70  Pre -0.7 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.4 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7 -0.6 1.8 -1.3 -0.4 1.1 -1.5 0.3 1.2 0.3 0 -1 -0.6 -0.4 0.1 0.2 -1.2 -1.8 -0.9 -1.1 1 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 2.4 0.2 1  Family 2 Post -0.8 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.8 -0.1 -0.3 0.1 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 2.1 0.1 1.1 0.4 0 0.3 0.1 0 -0.3 0 -0.4 1.8 1.4 1.6 0.5 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.3  Change  -  + =  *+ *+ *+ + * _ *+ =  * + + — *  4  = X + X  4  f + =  *+ X +  + + + X +  + + =  -X X + +  Pre -1.6 -0.5 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 -0 -0.5 -2.1 0.5 0 0 2.1 0 -1 -0.5 -0.5 -1 1.6 -0.5 -2.1 -1 -1 -0.5 0 -1.6 -0.5 0 -1 -1.6 0.5 0 -1 -0.5  Post Change -2.1 4 0 + 0.5 X + 1.6 = --1 0 4 -0.5 = -1 X -1 -0.5 X + 0.5 — -2.1 = 0.5 X + 1 X + 1.6 = 2.1 + 0.5 = -1 * -1.6 I + 0 1 •0.5 * 0.5 -0.5 + -1.6 -1.6 4 1 = -0.5 4 0.5 1 4 0 X 4 1.6 X + 0 X + -0.5 0 4 0.5 X 4 0 4 0  Legend: + Indicates increase - indicates decrease = indicates no change * indicates significant change • indicates significant change for both families 1 and 2  120  The results show a statistically significant increase (1 Z-Score or more) in 12 items (Family 1) and in nine items (Family 2). Items 18, 30, 58 and 69 increased for both families. There was a significant decrease (1 Z-5core or more) in 2 items (Family 1) and in 3 items (Family 2). b) Less Desirable Behaviours Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the pre and post Z-Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours for Family 1 and 2. 3.0  F R E Q U E N C Y  2.4  1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8 -2.4 -3.0~ i  l  l  l  2 5 10 • PRE  Fig. 5.  l  I  15  l  l  l  l  l  l  l  l  l  I  I  I  l  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  l  I  17 24 27 29 33 37 39 43 47 55 65 67  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable)  ciPOST  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Less Desirable Behaviours for Family 1  121  I  I  l  I  F R E Q U E N C Y i  2 5 10  i  i  15  i  17  i  i  24  i  i  27  i  i  i  29  i  33  i  i  37  i  i  i  39  i  43  i  i  47  i  i  55  i  i  65  i  i  i  i  i i  67  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable) • PRE Fig. 4.  nPOST  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Less Desirable Behaviours for Family 2  The results of the pre and post Z-Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours are displayed in Table 7.  122  Table 7 Pre & Post Z-Scores of Less Desirable Behaviours per Family Family 1 Item 2 5 10 1 1 15. 16 17 20 24 26 27 28 29 32 33 36 37 38 39 41 43 46 47 49 55 56 65 • 66 67 68 Legend  Pre 0.5 -1 0.1 0.8 0 -0.7 0.5 -0 -0.8 1.3 1.1 -1.2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -0 -0 -2 0 2 -0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.1 -0.4 1.1 0 -0.1  Family 2 Post -0.7 -1 -1 -1.5 -1.1 0 0.1 -1 -0.3 -0.3 0.9 -0.4 -2 -2 -1 -2 -0 -1 -1.8 -0.3 0.1 -0.7 -0.7 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -1.5  -\.\  0.3 -1.6  Change X  1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.5 1.6 -1.6 1.6 1 2.1 1.6 0.5 0.5 -1.6 1 0.5 1.6 0 0.5 0.5 -0.5 -.05 0.5 1 0.5  -  =  x X _ X  -  X  -  + X  -  -  —  —  =  +  X  -  X  -  X  -  X  -  X  -  X  -  X  -  + X  Pre  -  Post Change 1 X -0.5 -1 -. 0 X -1 0.5 X ••0.5 + 0.5 X + 2.1 + 1 = 1.6 X + 0 1 + 1.6 X 1 X 0 X -.5 X -1.6 + -1 1 0 X .5 -.05 0 0 + 0 X -1.6 = 0.5 X -0.5 0  indicates increase - indicates decrease = indicates no change indicates significant change • indicates significant change for both Families and 2  The results show a statistically significant decrease (1 Z-5core or more) in 14 less desirable behaviours (Family 1) and in ten (Family 2). Significant increases (based on 1 Z-Score or more) were seen in two less desirable behaviours (Family 2).  123  c) Neutral Behaviours Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the pre and post Z-5cores for Neutral Behaviours of Family 1 and 2.  Fig. 5.  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Neutral Behaviours for Family 1  124  3.0  F R E Q U E N C Y  2.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.8 -2.4 -3.0  i 22  I 21  I 23  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (neutral) • PRE Fig. 6.  nPOST  Pre/Post Z-Scores of Neutral Behaviours for Family 2  The results of pre and post Z-Scores for behaviours labelled "neutral" are illustrated in Table 8.  Table 8 Pre and Post Z-Scores for Neutral Behaviours Item Family Pre1 21 1.3 22 -0.1 0 23  Post .1 0.5 0.2  Change  *+ +  Legend: + indicates increase • indicates decrease = indicates no change • indicates significant change • indicates significant change for both Families 1 and 2  125  Pre Family 2 Post Change + 0 .5 = 1 1 = -.05 -0.5  2) INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION a) Inter-Rater Reliability Inter-observer reliability was obtained by using the formula of: Aoreements  x  ] Q 0  Agreements + Disagreements Reliability scores ranged from 60 to 100% with the mean being 87.6%. Perfect agreement (100%) was shown on items 23, 25, 32, 52 and 55. Nine items had reliability under 80% (items 13: 60%; item 50: 68.8%; item 19: 69%; item 62: 72.2%; item 18: 73%; item 53: 77.7%; item 70: 77.9%; item 3: 79.6%; item 37: 79.7%). The remaining items ranged in reliability between 80% and 100%. Appendix J provides a full list of reliability per item. b) Pre-training Observation The behavioural scores for each subject, recorded over the three observation periods were added for each item respectively. Where a discrepancy for any item existed between the observers, the mean was used, (see Appendix N). These recordings were graphed, according to frequency for each subject and according to "Desirable", "Less Desirable" and "Neutral" behaviours. c) Post-training Observation The post- intervention recordings were superimposed on the preintervention graphs, to allow for a comparison. Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 illustrate the pre and post mean scores of Desirable Behaviours for each subject and Figure 11, the overall mean pre and post scores of the Desirable Behaviours. 126  a) Desirable Behaviours  F R E Q U E N C Y  13  6 7 9 12 13 1418 19253031 34354044455051 5253545861 626369 70  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (desirable) *PRE  oPOST  Fig. 7. Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Desirable Behaviours for Subject A  25.0 22.5  13  6 7 9 121314181925303134354044455051525354586162636970  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (desirable) «PRE  DPOST  . 8. Pro/Post Means of Observation Scores for Desirable Behaviours for Subject B  127  25.0  F  R  E Q U E N C Y  22.5 20.0_ 17.5  13  6 7 9 12 131418 1925303134354044455051525354586162636970  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (desirable) • PRE  oPOST  Fig. 9. Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Desirable Behaviours for Subject C  25.0  F R E Q U E N C Y  22.5  13  6 7 9 12 1314181925303134354044455051525354586162636970  BEHAVIOURAL. ITEMS (desirable) • PRE  oPOST  Fig. 10. Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Desirable Behaviours for Subject D  128  25.0 22.5  13  6 7 9 12 13 1418 1 9 2 5 3 0 3 1 3 4 3 5 4 0 4 4 1 5 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 8 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 9 7 0  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (desirable) • PRE  DPOST  Fig. 11. Overall Moan Pre/Post Observation Scores for Desirable Behaviours  The pre and post scores for Desirable Behaviours are illustrated in Table 9. The T-Test scores are found in Appendix P.  129  Table 9 Pre and Post. Mean Scores for Desirable Behaviours Items A Pre  B  D Overall Mean  C  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Change  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  3  15  5,5  7.5  2,5  5  2  8  3.1  8.8  *+  6  4.5 6  8  5  6.5  3.5  5  5.5  5.5  4.75  8.9  *+  7  4  17.5  3  12.5  2  12  2  15  2.75  14.25  *+  9  2  6.5  0  4.5  0  4.5  0  7.5  0.5  5.8  *+  12  2  4.5  0  1.5  0  2  0  2  0.05  2.5  *+  13  0  4  0  2.5  0  1.5  0  5  0  3.25  *+  14  4.5  8.5  4.5  7.5  2.5  5  3.5  10.5  3.75  7.9  18  3.5  11  2  7  0  7  0  9  1.4  8.5  *+  19  9  0  4.5  0  4  0  7  0.38  6.1  *+  25  1,5 0  3  0  2  0  1  0  2  0  2.0  *+  30  3.5  8.5  2  6.5  1  5  2.5  8.5  2.26  7.0  * 4  31  7  11  2  6.5  2.5  8  1  10  3.0  8.8  * 4  34  9  17  14.5  4.5  12  2.5  7.5  5.8  12.8  * 4  35  2.5  12  7 1  5  0  6  0  7  0.8  7.5  * 4  40  2.5  7.5  1.5  5.5  1  5  0  3.5  1.2  5.4  * 4  44  4  5.5  4  5  2  2.5  3  4  3.25  4.25  * 4  45 50  8 1.5  22  6  15  6  14  7  17.5  6.8  17.0  * 4  5  1  4.5  0  2.5  0  4.5  0.5  4.0  * 4  51  0  10  0  4  0  4.5  0  10  0  7.0  * .,.  52  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  3  0  1.2  4  53 54  1  2.5  2  0  1  0  3  0.5  2.0  * 4  0  3.5  1,5 0  3  0  3  0  5.5  0  3.8  * 4  58  5.5  13.5  4  9.5  2  8  1.5  10  3.2  10.2  * 4  61  0  7.5  0  4  0  5  0  7.5  0  10.0  * 4  62  0  2.5  0  3  0  0  0  3  0  6.0  * 4  63  2  10  0  5  0  9  0  9  0.5  8.2  * 4  69  5.5  18  6  15.5  4.5  14  2  15.5  4.5  16.0  * 4  3  9.5  3.0  8.6  * 4  7.5 1.5 6 11.5 2.5 70 5 Legend: + indicates increase - indicates decrease = indicates no change * indicates significant change  130  b) Less Desirable Behaviours Figures 12,13,14 and 15 illustrate the pre and post mean scores of Less Desirable Behaviours for each subject and Figure 16 the overall mean pre and post scores of Less Desirable Behaviours.  29.0, 26.1_  R  23.2  E  20.3_  Q  17.4  U N  C Y  14.5_ U t 8  -  - 7  5.8. 2.9_ 0.0  1 1 2  • PRE  1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 iff 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V  1 i 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  5 1138172024262728293236375556656768  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable)  DPOST  Fiq. 12.Pre/Post Means or Observation Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours for Subject A  131  32.0  2  5  • PRE  11 38  17 20 24 26 27 28 29 32 36 37 55 56 65 67 68  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable)  nPOSf  Fig. 13. Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours tor Subject 8  2  5  11 38  17 20 24 26 27 28 29 32 36 37 55 56 65 67 68  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable) • PRE  oPOST  Fig. 14.Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours for Subject C  132  25.0 22.5  2 • PRE  5  11 38 17 20 24 26 27 28 29 32 36 37 55 56 65 67 68 a POST  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable)  Fig. 15.Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours for Subject D  28.0  2  5 1138 1 7 2 0 2 4 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 2 3 6 3 7 5 5 5 6 6 5 6 7 6 8  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (less desirable) • PRE  DPOST  Fig. 16. Overall Mean Pre/Post Observation Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours  The Pre and Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours are shown in Table 10. The T-Test Scores are found in Appendix P. 133  Table 10 Pre and Post Mean Scores for Less Desirable Behaviours Items  A Pre  B  C  D  Overall Mean  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  13  13  12  10  5.5  22  Pre  Post  14  15.6  11.1  Change * _  2  17.5  5  14  5.5  16  10.5  19  12  18.5  5.5  16.8  4.1  11  14  8.5  17  11  17.5  12  16.5  9.5  16.2  10.25  * _  17  17  8.5  18.5  10  19.5  13  16  11  17.8  10.6  * _  20  7.5  2  6.5  2.5  7.5  4.5  2.5  2  6.0  4.5  * _  24  2  8  3  7  0  5  2  6.5  1.71  26  7  6  19  11.5  3.5  2.5  7.5  5.6  9.2  6.4  _  27  29  11  31.5  13.5  27  11  21  11.5  27.1  11.71  * _  28  8  5  10.5  6  7.5  9.5  4  9.8  5.6  29  5.5  2.5  11  8.5  15  11  11  7  10.6  7.21  * _  32  0  0  0  0  7  0  0  0  1.7  0  _  36  12  3  18  10  18  8.5  14  9  15.5  7.6  37  11  9.5  14  11  10.5  8  12.5  10.5  12  9.8  38  12  7.5  12  4  16.5  12.5  19  10  14.9  8.5  55  5  2  10  3  10  3  14  4  10.0  3.0  *...  56  9  5  10.5  8.5  11  7.5  11.5  8  10.5  7.2  * _  65  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  67  19  12  18  9.5  11.5  9.5  17  12.5  16.4  10.9  • _  68  19  13  22  15.5  21  16  14.5  11.5  19.0  14.0  * _  Legend: + indicates increase - indicates decrease = indicates no change * indicates significant change  134  ..£$>-...  *+  * _  c) Neutral Behaviours Figures 17,18, 19 and 20 Illustrate the Pre and Post Mean Scores of Neutral Behaviours for each subject and Figure 21, the Overall Mean Pre and Post Scores of Neutral Behaviours. 25.0,  F R E  Q  U E N C Y  22.5_ 20.0_ 17.5_ 15.0_ 12.5_ 10.0_ 7.5. 5.0_ 2.5_ 0.0  • PRE  i 1 21  i 1 22  ^^"H. T  23  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (neutral)  oPOST  Fig. 17. Pre/Post Means of Observation Scores for Neutral Behaviours for Subject A  135  22  23  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (neutral) • PRE  oPOST  Fig. 18 Pre/Post Means of Observations Scores for Neutral Behaviours for Subject B  22  23  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (neutral) oPRE  oPOST  Fig. 19. Pre/Post Means of Observations Scores for Neutral Behaviours for Subject C  136  21  22  23  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (neutral) • PRE  oPOST  Fig. 20 Pre/Post Means of Observations Scores for Neutral Behaviours for Subject D  25.0  F R E Q U E N C Y  22.5. 20.0_ 17.5 15.0 12.5. 10.0 7.5 5.0 2-5 0.0 21  22  23  BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS (neutral) • PRE  |2fc21  nPOST  Overall Mean Pre/Post Observation Scores for Neutral Behaviours  The Pre and Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours are illustrated in Table 11. The T-Test Scores are found in Appendix P. 137  Table 11 Pre and Post Mean Scores for Neutral Behaviours  Items  A  B  C  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  21  3.5  6  3  5.5  1  22  6.5  15  5.5  4.5  23  0  7  0  11 4  Legend: + indicates increase - indicates decrease - indicates no change * indicates significant change  Pre  D  Overall Mean  Post  Pre  Post  4.5  3  4  3  0  10  0  138  Pre  Post  Change  2.7  2.8  *+  9  4.9  11.29  *+  6  0  5.71  *+  CHAPTER V DISCUSSION HYPOTHESIS 1 Those behaviours of the teachers which are judged as "Desirable" will increase and those judged as "Less Desirable" will decrease. a) Desirable Behaviours: i)The Q-Sort There were significant (1 Z-Score or more) increases in 12 of the 37 Desirable behaviours (or 32.4%) for Family 1 and in nine of the 37 for Family 2 (or 243%), making an overall increase of 28.3%. The behaviours which increased significantly for both families (18, 30, 58 and 69) covered a range of the dimensions measured, including playfulness; imaginativeness; level of play; use of materials; level of intervention and method of intervention. Furthermore, both families increased (less than 1 Z~ Score) in items 4, 45, 57, 59 and 70, again covering a range of dimensions. Subjects A, B and D increased in playfulness and imaginativeness (items 12, 42, 35, 18, 9 and 8); in their skill at preparing the children for play (items 51 and 52); at incorporating transitions into play (item 42); at intervening in play and at using the play space (Items 30, 44 and 58). Subject C increased in a limited way in playfulness and imaginativeness (items 6 and 18) and more extensively in his level and methods of intervention (items 30, 31, 58, 60, 61 and 62). All four of the subjects significantly increased in item 69 (using each other to sustain play). The training appeared to impact differently on these two groups of people in that Family 2 was less effected than Family I by those elements 139  dealing with playfulness and imaginativeness. Subjects A, B, and D are female and have had more experience than Subject C (who is male), in working with groups of children. They have also undergone previous training in individual play therapy, (which Subject C had not). Their additional experience and training may account for the gap in increases of playful and imaginative behaviours between Family 1 and 2 in that their skills in other areas were more developed, leading to a sense of comfort with play. The training had a negative effect on two desirable behaviours for Family 1 (items 14 and 64) and on three desirable behaviours for Family 2 (items 13, 42 and 48), in that these behaviours decreased. Decreases in both items 64 (Family 1) and item 48 (Family 2) may be due to the teacher bringing in more ideas for the creation and extension of play and, hence, having a greater tendency to disregard the child's ideas and issues. All the subjects decreased in their spontaneous movement. (Item 1), which supports Lieberman's, (1977) contention that adults are not comfortable with this behaviour. The fact that all the subjects saw no change in behaviours 7, 34 and 50 was surprising, given that there were increases in other areas of playfulness and imaginativeness and that the perceived increases in behaviours 59 and 70 would indicate an extension of play to more children. Overall, based on the subject's perceptions, the training impacted positively on average on 28.3% of the total desirable behaviours. Training appeared to effect a range of dimensions. ii) The Independent Observation In considering the overall mean changes in the desirable behaviours, except for item 1, all increased. The increases ranged from 4.25 to 16 points. With the exception of item 52 (insignificant change) and item 1 (no change), all the increases in desirable behaviours were significant as based on the T-test 140  of P <.05 (27 of the 29 desirable behaviours increased significantly; 93.1% of desirable behaviours). The Q-Sort results showed significant overall increases (1 Z score or more) in 28.3% of desirable behaviours. Those behaviours which increased for both Family 1 and 2 covered the dimensions of imaginativeness (item 18); level of play (item 30); level of intervention (item 58) and method of intervention (item 69). Based on the T-test results of the independent observation scores, the highest significant change in desirable behaviours was measured in the dimensions of playfulness and imaginativeness (items 7 & 12); in the structuring of the play space (item 40); in the level of play (item 30); the level of intervention (item 58) and the methods of intervention (items 63, 69 and 70). b) Less Desirable: i) The Q-Sort There were significant decreases (1 Z-5core or more) for Family 1 in behaviours connected to limit setting and the organization of the room (items 66, 49, 26 and 15). This reflects a decrease in these teachers' engagement in activities other than play. Correspondingly there was a significant decrease in the teachers' leaving children to continue the storyline alone (item 68) in that there were less occasions on which the teachers would leave constructive play in order to set limits. When the pre and post Z scores were compared, four behaviours which hampered playfulness and imaginativeness significantly decreased for Family 1 (items 15, 10, 11 and 2). In the case of both items 10 and 11, their "desirable" counterparts (items 9 and 12) increased significantly.  141  Similarly, items 43 and 47 were seen to decrease significantly as the "desirable" opposite behaviours (items 42 and 44) increased. There was a significant decrease in the less interactive level of teacher intervention (items 55 and 56) for Family one. Again, items 57 and 58, which indicated more desirable levels of intervention increased. For Family 1, the decreases in two less desirable behaviours (items 20 and 65) were not matched by increases in their desirable counterparts. Subject C decreased significantly less than did Subjects A, B and D in those less desirable behaviours which hamper playfulness and imaginativeness. For Subject C, the significant decreases in items 46 and 65 were matched by increases in the desirable opposite behaviours. All four of the subjects significantly decreased in items 15 and 65. The decrease in item 15 may be due to less of a need to adhere to rules due to increased playskills. The "desirable" counterpart of item 65 increased only for Subject C. This may be due to the decrease in teaching in general for Subjects A, B and D as their playfulness and imaginativeness increased. Overall, Family 1 significantly decreased in 14 of the 30 less desirable behaviours (46.6%) and Family 2 decreased in 10 of the 30 less desirable behaviours. (33.3%). Thus, overall, significant decreases were perceived in 39.9% of less desirable behaviours. Only Subject C increased significantly in less desirable behaviours. The increase in item 28 (manipulating objects) was surprising to the extent that Subject C increased in his level of play. However, he also considered there to be little increase in his level of imaginativeness. Item 24 increased in that even this minimal level of make-believe play was not seen by Subject C to be a part of his pre-training behaviour. It may be that this item should have been  142  rated as a "Neutral" or as a "Desirable" behaviour, given that even minimal make-believe play is more desirable than none. ii) The Independent Observation In considering the overall mean for less desirable behaviours, except for increases in one behaviour (item 24) and one behaviour which stayed the same (item 65), all the subjects decreased their less desirable behaviours. The decreases ranged from 4.2 points to 11.7. The behaviours which decreased covered the full range of dimensions. The decreases on 15 of the 19 less desirable behaviours (79%) were significant, based on the T-test of p <.05. The increase on item 24 was also significant. c) "Neutral" Behaviours: i) The Q-5ort Based on the subjects" perceptions, only Item 21 increased significantly (1 Z-5core or more) and only for Family 1. ii) The Independent Observation Based on the observation, items 21, 22 and 23 increased significantly (p <.05). The variation in results may be due to the fact that the level of fantasy depends on the children's need for realism at any given point and on their developmental level given that younger children have a greater need for realism in play (Hartley, 1963).  143  HYPOTHESIS 2 The increases in the "Desirable" behaviours will be greater than the decreases in the "Less Desirable" behaviours. i) The Q-Sort Based on the Q-Sort, a greater decrease in less desirable behaviours was measured than was an increase in desirable behaviours. (The mean increase in desirable behaviours was 28.3% and the mean decrease in less desirable was 39.9%). ii) The Independent Observation Based on the T-test of p <.05 level, 93.1% of desirable behaviours increased and 79% of the less desirable behaviours decreased. HYPOTHESIS 3 Those behaviours of the teacher which measure the dimensions of "Playfulness" and "Imaginativeness" will not change significantly. i) TheQ-Sort There was a difference between the subjects' evaluation of their changes on these dimensions. Subjects A, B and D measured significant increases (1 Z-Score or more) in six of the 13 desirable behaviours (46.1%) under these dimensions and Subject C in three (23%). Decreases were measured by each family in one desirable playful behaviour respectively (Family 1: item 14; Family 2: item 13).. Subjects A, B, and D significantly decreased in five of the nine less desirable behaviours seen to hamper playfulness and imaginativeness, (55.5%) and Subject C in four of the nine less desirable behaviours (44%). 144  All in all, significant changes in the dimensions of playfulness and imaginativeness occurred in 12 of 22 behaviours or 545% (Family 1) and in eight of 22 behaviours (36.3%) for Family 2. Thus, on average 45.4% of playful and imaginative behaviours changed significantly. There was no change at all in one behaviour (item 7). The remainder of the behaviours rated as playful and imaginative had no significant change. ii) The Independent Observation There were significant increases (based on a T-test of p <.05) in all the desirable behaviours rated under the dimensions of playfulness and imaginativeness except for item 1 for which there was no change. There were signifant decreases in all the less desirable behaviours which were seen to limit playfulness and imaginativeness, based on the T-test of p <.05. HYPOTHESIS 4 The teachers" limit setting behaviours will decrease. (Based on decreases in items 15, 17 and 66 for the Q-Sort and on a decrease in item 27 for the observation.) i) The Q-Sort Only item 15 decreased significantly for all the subjects. A significant decrease in item 66 and an insignificant decrease in item 27 was measured for subjects A, B & D. No change in items 27 and 66 was measured for subject C. ii) The Independent Observation Item 27 was rated as decreasing significantly, based on a T-test of p <.05. 145  The results show a discrepancy between the Q-5ort and Independent Observation in the following areas: a) Increases and Decreases in Behaviours: According to the Q-Sort, some of the desirable behaviours decreased and some of the less desirable increased. The independent observation rated all the desirable behaviours as decreasing and only one less desirable as increasing. b) The Specific Behaviours Rated as Most and Least Frequently Used: In general, the two behaviours rated by the subjects as most and least used differed from those two which were observed to be most and least used. The only behaviour rated in common was item 32 (as least used). c) Increases in Desirable Behaviours and Decreases in Less Desirable Behaviours: The subjects perceived a greater decrease in less desirable behaviours than an increase in desirable behaviours. The independent observation showed a greater increase in desirable behaviours than a decrease in less desirable behaviours. d) Decreases in Limit Setting Behaviours: Though independent observation showed significant decreases in limit setting for all the subjects, Subject C did not perceive this.  146  CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS This study found that a five week in-service training period increased significantly, based on the Q-Sort, 28.3% of those behaviours deemed as desirable in facilitating the play of emotionally disturbed children and decreased significantly 39.9% of those behaviours seen to limit play. The independent observation showed a significant increase on 93.1% of desirable behaviours and a significant decrease on 79% of less desirable behaviours. Thus the Q-Sort showed an overall positive effect of 341% and the independent observation of 86%. The training had an overall negative effect, (as judged by a significant decrease in desirable behaviours and a significant increase in less desirable behaviours) on 5.1% of the behaviours, as based on the Q-Sort, and on 1.9% of the behaviours as based on the independent observation. The difference between the results may be interpreted thus: due to the intensity of the training and the amount of new information introduced over a relatively short period, the subjects may have felt overwhelmed and did not evaluate themselves as transferring the learning as well as independent observation indicated they did. The subjects may also have over-estimated the frequency of the desirable behaviours on the pre-test measurement as they indicated that it was difficult for them to differentiate between behaviours which they value and those which they do. Training may have made them more comfortable and less defensive in their self-evaluation and less in need to bolster their performance. In considering the discrepancy in the results, it is important to understand the nature of the instruments. The Q-Sort may show a higher negative effect in that this instrument of measurement is one of comparative ranking by which subjects weigh one behaviour against the other, seeing all as 147  inter-related. Since the number of desirable behaviours exceeded that of the less desirable, it would be reasonable to assume that some desirable behaviours would decrease. The Q-Sort provides the subjects' perceptions about their behaviour. These perceptions are not based on a one-or two-time assessment but on a "historical" perspective of how they feel they behave habitually. The independent observation provides a rating of the behaviours, as defined by their actual observation. The ratings are based on a number of observation occasions and do not account for variables such as stress, illness or moods which may confound results. Independent observations provide an exact frequency rating of the behaviours, without considering their interrelationship. The independent observation results may be skewed given that change is often more rapid initially. Furthermore, the independent observation checklist did not include 19 of the Q-Sort items which too may account for the differences in results. It is difficult to assess which instrument is more valid - each has its strengths and weaknesses for this study. As habitual behaviours are considered, the Q-Sort provides the subjects' perceptions of their behaviour both historically and in the present, whereas the independent observation takes into account a "snapshot" of behaviours. However, subject perceptions may not always be reflected in behaviour and hence may not be considered by some as significant change. On the other hand, conceptual change may precede actual behavioural change. Those in favour of self-evaluation claim that each individual knows him/herself best. Those opposing it, argue that due to anxiety or esteem issues, how the individual portrays him/herself may not be accurate. Thus, the two measurements are used independently to give a broad evaluation of the effectiveness of the training.  148  The fact that the behaviours which change significantly, cover a range of dimensions, including the teacher's own playskills, strengthens Strom, (1981 )'s argument that playing is a skill which can be taught. It also shows that all the aspects of the training were equally effective. These results reinforce the interconnectedness of the various elements of the training. A significant change was shown in the behaviours which measure the dimensions of playfulness and imaginativeness. Though Lieberman (1977) and Singer & Singer, (1977) put forth theories claiming that playfulness and imaginativeness become personality traits in adulthood and hence are stable, they also contended, along with De Mille, (1976) and Lehane, (1979) that children's imaginativeness and playfulness could be enhanced. This study extends the effectiveness of these exercises to adults. It also supports Sponseller, (1974)'s view that adults can be trained to be playful models. The results of the training lend credence to the beliefs of Bowen, (1966); Singer &. Singer, (1977); and Hendricks & Wills, (1975) who contended that, by getting in touch with childhood memories and by relaxing, the teacher's playfulness will be increased. The fact that no change (or decrease) was seen in spontaneous movement, supports Lieberman's, (1977) argument that adults are not comfortable with such behaviour. The results were mixed as to whether increased playfulness in the teacher led to a greater allowance for this in the child, as advocated by Aguilar's, (1983). The independent observation supported this whereas the Q-Sort did not. The teachers' limit setting behaviours decreased significantly. This supports the argument of Lieberman, (1977) and Aguilar, (1983), who claimed that an increase in playfulness will decrease the need to adhere to rules and lead to a greater focus in play. It may also be that due to increased teacher play, the children were more engaged in constructive play and hence there was less need for limit setting. 149  The subjects initially overestimated the time involved in play. This verifies the findings of Strom, (1981) who claimed that adults over estimate their time in play by three or four times. The significant increases in their organization of play, in their use of different voices, vocalizations and sounds and in their increased concentration in play extend the findings of Freyberg, (1973); Singer, (1973); and Wolfgang, (1977); in their training of children*s make-believe play behaviours. Change is a slow process, requiring time to integrate learning. This supports the research of Mohr, (1985); Watt, (1985) and Galambos, (1985) offered in Chapter 11. Though gains were made, this study recognizes the need for ongoing support to consolidate and extend learning as teachers continue to have difficulty sustaining play. The training impacted differently on the subjects with three subjects (A, B & D) increasing their playfulness and imaginativeness more than Subject C. Subject C had the least experience with pre-school programs, group work and play-based curriculum, as well as the least formal training in working with young children. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study include the following: The number of subjects and the lack of randomization makes generalizability impossible. It must be noted however, that Q-Methodology does not use randomization but carefully selects it's subjects to maximize differences. Furthermore, since the items, (which are drawn from theory), are the experimental population in Q-Methodology, it is the theory which is tested. It is thus possible to generalize from the results to the extent that the subjects behaved according to the theory, for the theory is considered general.  150  The subjects Initially overestimated the time involved in play. This verifies the findings of Strom, (1981) who claimed that adults over estimate their time in play by three or four times. The significant increases In their organization of play, In their use of different voices, vocalizations and sounds and in their increased concentration in play extend the findings of Freyberg, (1973); Singer, (1973); and Wolfgang, (1977); in their training of children's make-believe play behaviours. Change is a slow process, requiring time to integrate learning. This supports the research of Mohr, (1985); Watt, (1985) and Galambos, (1985) offered in Chapter II. Though gains were made, this study recognizes the need for ongoing support to consolidate and extend learning as teachers continue to have difficulty sustaining play. The training impacted differently on the subjects with three subjects (A, B & D) increasing their playfulness and imaginativeness more than Subject C. Subject C had the least experience with pre-school programs, group work and play-based curriculum, as well as the least formal training in working with young children. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study include the following: Tne number or subjects ano tne iacK or randomization maxes generalizability impossible. It must be noted however, that Q-Methodology does not use randomization but carefully selects it's subjects to maximize differences. Furthermore, since the items, (which are drawn from theory), are the experimental population in Q-Methodology, it is the theory which is tested. It is thus possible to generalize from the results to the extent that the subjects behaved according to the theory, for the theory is considered general.  150  Issues such as stress, Illness, personal difficulties were not controlled for and can impact on the behaviours measured in that a sense of relaxation is essential to play (Hendricks & Wills, 1975; Strom, 1981 and Bettelheim, 1987). The behavioural items 24 and 25 should not have been assumed as desirable/less desirable but as neutral in that they both indicate concentration in play. The checklist for independent observation assumed that an increase in certain behaviours (items 34, 44 and 45) would indicate a decrease in their less desirable counterparts. The Q-Sort results showed that this was not always so. There was no observation of the effect on the chlldrens' play. Reliability on nine items was low, probably due to poor operational definitions. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: This training would be most effective as an in-service model with teachers who have a solid grounding in basic Early Childhood Educational skills and who seek additional ways to foster the playskills of non-playing children. In training teachers of typical children, consideration needs to be given to the potentially destructive nature of over-intervention in the play of children with high functioning playskills. Training should occur over a period of a year so as to allow a slower pace and time to practice new skills. The method used involved teacher consideration and evaluation of their own work through the use of structured forms and systematic planning. As this approach was new to the teachers, time is required to allow for learning to be integrated into their teaching style. Teachers should be encouraged to become more research-oriented about their work and to experiment with ideas in a structured way. Model teaching to 151  demonstrate new concepts is essential as teachers had difficulty transferring theoretical learning to practice. On-going support is required so that learned behaviours can be maintained. Once the training and evaluation have been refined and, with careful planning, it can be extended to parents. This includes clearer operational definitions of the items, less items to be measured as well as a simplification of the dimensions. Those items measuring limit setting behaviours should differentiate between "essential limits" (those connected to safety and structure) and limits which hamper play. Intermittant evaluations during the in-service training should be done to provide data on the effectiveness of each workshop. The effects of the training on the children's play behaviour should be observed and measured over an extended period. To ensure teacher belief in the process and hence a greater commitment to change, they need to be involved in all stages of the training. To motivate and reinforce learning, financial and professional compensation for in-service training needs to be in place. Workshops should not occur immediately after a work day. In conclusion, this study shows promise in extending the existing research in training the playskills and make-believe capacity of children to teachers. However, recommendations have been made for changes needed before It Is extended to larger numbers of subjects.  152  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Adcock, D. & Segal, fl. (1980). Plav and learn. III. New York: Oak Tree Publications. Aguilar, T. (1983). Social and environmental barriers to playfulness. In J.L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (eds.), When children Dlav. Wheaton, nd.: Association for Childhood Education International. Allan, J. (1978). Serial drawing: a therapeutic approach with young children. Canadian Counsellor. 12,223-228. Allan, J. & Crandall, J. (1986). The rosebush: a visualization strategy. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling. 21.44-51. Allen, F.H. (1982). Therapeutic relationship with children. In G. Landreth (ed.).Plav therapy. Chicago, 111.: CharlesC. Thomas. Alexander, E. (1981). School centered play therapy. In C. Schaefer (ed.). Therapeutic use of child's play. New York: Aronson. Amster, F. (1982). Differential uses of play in treatment of young children. In 0. Landreth (ed.), Play, therapy. Chicago, 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Ankler, D.; Foster, J . ; McLaine, J . ; Sobel, J. & Weissbourd, B. (1981). Teaching children as they play. In R.D. Strom (ed.). Orowino through olav: readings for parents and teachers. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Co. Axline, V.M. (1982). Nondirective play therapy procedures and results. In 0. Landreth (ed.), Play therapy. Chicago, 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Axline, Y.M. (1969). Plav therapy. New York: Ballantlne Books Inc.  ,  Barnes, D. (1971). Preschool play norms. Developmental Psychology. 5.99-103. Bents, H. & Howey, K.R. (1981). Staff development-change in the individual. In B. Dillon-Peterson (ed.), Staff development/organization development. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Berne, P.H. & Savoury, L.M. (1985). Building self-esteem in children. New York: Continuum. Bettelheim, B. (1981). What happens when a child plays? In R.D. Strom (ed.). Orowino through play: readings for parents and teachers. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Co.  153  Bettelheim, B. (1987). The importance of play. The Atlantic Monthly. 5.30-33. Blblow, E. (1973). Imaginative play and the control of aggressive behaviour. In J.L. Singer (ed.), The child's world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press. Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 7.345374. Brazelton, T.B. (1981). How to choose toys. In R.D. Strom (ed.). Growing through plav: resdinos for parents and teachers. New York: Brooks/Cole Co. Bunker, Johnson & Parker (1982). Motivating children through olav. New York: Leisure Press. Butler, A.L.; Ootts, E.E. & Quinsberry, N.L. (1978). Plav as development. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Campbell, S.D. & Dill, N. (1983). The impact of changes in spatial density cn children's behaviours in a daycare setting. In J.L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (eds.). When children plav. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Childhood Educational International. Cherry, C (1976). Creative plav for the developing child. Belmont. Ca.: Fearon Inc. Cohen, S. & Rae, 0. (1987). Growing up with children: an introduction to work with young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Collier, R.G. (1983). The results of training preschool teachers to foster children's play. In J.L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (eds.), When children Plav. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Childhood Education International. Christie, J.F. (1982). Soclodramatlc pl8y training. Youno Children. 37. (4), 25-32. Christie, J.F. & Johnson, E.P. (1983). The role of play in socio-Intellectual development. Review of Educational Research. 53.93-115. Christie, J.F. (1985). Training of symbolic play. Early Child Development and Care. 19.43-54. Chud, G. & Fahlman, R. (1985). Earlv childhood education for a multicultural society. Vancouver: Wedge. Csapo, M. (1981). Children with behaviour and social disorders: A Canadian focus. Vancouver: Centre for Human Development and Research.  154  De mile, R. (1967). Put vour mother on the celling. New York: Western Books. Dillon-Peterson, B. (ed.) (1981). Staff oevelopment/Oraanization development. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dodge, M.K. & Frost, J.L. (1986). Children's dramatic play - influence of thematic and non-thematic setting. Childhood Education. 62. 166-170. Eisner, E.W. (1964). Think with me about creativity. New York: Owen. El'Konin, D. (1971). Symbolics and its functions in the play of children. In R.E. Herron & B. SuttonSmith (eds.), Child's play. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ellis, M.J. (1973). Whv people Plav. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Epstein, G. (1981). Waking dream therapy. New York: Human Science Press. Enkson, E.H. Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Fein, O.A. (1975). Transformational analysis of pretending. Developmental Psychology. 11.291 -96. Field, T.F. (1980). Preschool play: effects of teacher/child ratio and organization of classroom space. Child Study Journal. 10. 191 -205. Frank, L.K. (1981). Validity of play. In C. Schaefer (ed.), Therapeutic use of child's olav. New York: Aronson. Freud, S. (1938). Psychopathology of everyday life. In A.A. Brill (ed. and trans.). The basic writings of Siomund Freud. New York: Random House. Freyberg, J.T. (1973). Increasing the imaginative play of urban disadvantaged kindergarten children through systematic training. In J.L. Singer (ed.). The child's world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press. Fromm, E. (1971). The forgotten language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Frost, J.L. & Sunderlin, S. (eds.) (1983). When children play. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Childhood Education International. Oalambos. E.C. (ed.) (1985). What works in in-service education programs for teachers. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board. Gall, M.D. & Renchler, R.S. (1985). Effective staff development for teachers: a research-based model. Eugene, Oreg.: ERTC University of Oregon.  155  Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gottlieb, 5. (1973). Modeling effects upon fantasy. In J.L. Singer (ed.). The child's world of makebelieve. New York: Academic Press. Ginott, H.G. (1982). A rationale for selecting toys in play therapy. In G. Landreth (ed.). Plav therapy. Chicago, m.: Charles C. Thomas. Greenacre, P. (1959). Play in relation to creative Imagination. In The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. H . 61-80. Guerney, L.F. (1983). Client centered (non-directive) play therapy. In CE. Schaefer & K.J. O'Connor (eds.), Handbook of plav therapy. New York: Wiley & Sons. H8rt, J. (1968). Effects of contingent and non-contingent social reinforcement on the co-operative play of a preschool child. Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis. 1.73-76. Hartley, R. & Goldenson, R.M. (1983). The complete book of children's plav. New York: Thomas Y. Cowell Co. Hendrick, J. (1986). The whole child. New York: Merril & Co. Hendricks, G. & Wills, R. (1975). The centering book. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Herron, R.E. & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). Child's plav. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Jernberg, A. (1981). Theraplay technique. In C. Schaefer (ed.). Therapeutic use of child's plav. New York: Aronson. Johnson, J.E.; Christie, J.F. & Yawkey, T.D. (1987). Plav and early childhood development. Chicago.lll.: Scott, Foreman & Co. Johnston, D. J. (1971). Teacher's In-service education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Joyce, B. (1981). A memorandum for the future. In B. Dillon-Peterson (ed.). Staff development/organization development. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jung, C.W. (1964). Man and his symbols. London: Aldus Books: Kerlinger, F. (1964). Foundations of behavioural research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.  156  Klein, M. (1982). The psychoanalytic play technique. In 6. Landreth (ed.). Play theraov. Chicago. 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Klinger, E. (1969). Development of imaginative behaviour; implications of play for a theory of fantasy. Psychological Bulletin. 72. (4), 277-298. Krown, S. (1974). Threes and fours go to school. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Landreth, 6. (ed.) (1982). Play therapy. Chicago, 111.: Charles C. Thomas. Leach, P. (1988). Your babv and child. From birth to aoe five. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Lehane, S. (1979). The creative child. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Levy, J.L. (1978). Play behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lieberman, J.N. ( 1977). Playfulness: its relationship to imagination & creativity. New York: Academic Press. MacKinnon, D.W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist. 17. (7), 484-95. Mandelbaum, J. (1975). Creative dramatics in early childhood in Youno children. XXX. (2), 84-93. McYlckor, P. (1974). Imagination. Washington, D.C: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Mohr.M. (1985). In-service, writing projects, and teacher change. In E.C. Galambos (ed.). What works in in-service education programs for teachers. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board Mussen, P.H.; Conger, J.J. & Kagan, J. (1979). Child Development and personality. New York: Harper &Row. Nicolaysen, M. (1981). Dominion in children's play: its meaning and management. In R.D. Strom (ed.), Growing through play: readings for parents and teachers. Montery, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Co. Oaklander, V. (1978). Windows to our children. Moab, Utah: Real People Press. Olszewski, P. & Fuson, K.C. (1982). Verbally expressed fantasy pl8y of preschoolers as a function of toy structure. Developmental Psychology. 18. (1), 57-61. Parten, M. (1933). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology. 27.243-169.  157  Pellegrini, A.D. (1985). The relations between symbolic play and literate behaviour: a review and critique of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research. 55. (0,107-121. Pellegrini, A.D. & Galda, L. (1984). The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the development of children's story comprehension. American Education Research Journal. 19.443-452. Piaget, J. (1945). Plav. dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Routledge. Piers, M.W. (ed.) (1972). Plav and development. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Powell Jones, T. (1972). Creative learning in perspective. London, England: University of London Press. Pringle, L. (1980). The needs of children. New York: Hutchinson & Co. Pulaski, M.A. (1973). Toys and imaginative play. In J.L. Singer (ed.), The child's world of makebelieve. New York: Academic Press. Pulaski, M.A. (1974). The rich rewards of make-believe. Psychology Today. 7. (8). 68-74. Raskin, L.W.; Taylor, W.J. & Kerckhoff, F.A. (1975). The teacher as observer for assessment: a guideline. Younochildren. XXX. (5). 339-344. Read, K. & Patterson, J. (1980). The nursery school and kindergarten: human relatianships and learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Rowls, M.D. (1985). The role of higher education in staff development: advantages and requisite institutional conditions. In E.C. Galambos (ed.), What works in in-service education programs for teachers? Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board. Rubin, K.H.; Watson, K.S. & Jombar, T.W. (1978). Free play behaviour in preschool and kindergarten children. Child Development. 49.534-536. Rycroft, C. (1979). The Innocence of dreams. London: Hogarth Press. Sapir, S. (1984). The child specialist. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 17. (5). 282-286. Saltz, E. & Brodie, J. (1982). Pretend play training in childhood: a review and critique. Contributions to Human Development. 6.97-113. Singer, J.L. & Singer, D. (1977). Partners in plav. New York: Harper & Row. Singer, J.L.( 1976). The child's world of make-believe. New York: Academic Press. Singer, J.L. (1975). The inner world of daydreaming. New York: Harper & Row.  158  Singer, J.L. (1974). Exploring man's imaginative world. In R. Strom (ed.) Teachers and the learning t  process. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Singer, J.L. & Singer, D.0. (1985). Make-believe games and activities to foster imaginative play in vouno children. Glenview,111.: Scott, Foresman & Co. Slavson, S.R. (1981). Play group therapy. In C. Schaefer (ed.), Therapeutic use of child's play. New York: Aronson. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of soclodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: JohnWiley& Sons. Smith, P.K. (1983). Training in fantasy play. Early Childhood Development and Care. 11.217-226. Smith, P.K. & Syddall, S. (1978). Play and non-play tutoring in preschool children. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 48. (3), 315-325. Spodek, B., Davis, M.A. (1982). A study of programs to prepare early childhood personnel. Journal of Teacher Education. XXXII). (2), 42-44. Sponseller, D. (ed.) ( 1974). Play as a learning medium. Washington, D.C: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q-technioue and its methodology. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press. Strom, R.D. (1981). Growing through play: readings for parents and teachers. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Co. Sutton-Smith, B. (1981). Children at play. In R.D. Strom (ed.), Growing through plav: readings for parents and teachers. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Co. Sutton-Smith, B. (1981). Toys that reach and teach kids of all ages. In R.D. Strom (ed.), Growing through plav: readings for parents and teachers. Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole Co. Sutton-Smith, B. & Sutton-Smith, S. (1974). How to play with vour children (and when not to). New York: Hazelton Books Inc. Teets, S.T. (1983). Modification of play behaviours of preschool children through manipulation of environmental variables. In J.L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (eds.), When children play. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Chi Idhood Education I nternational.  Torrence, E.P. (1971). Stimulation, enjoyment and originality in dyadic creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology. 62. (1), 45-48. Vanderberg, B. (1981). The role of play in the development of insightful tool-using strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 27.97-109. Wade, C. (1983). Effects of teacher training on teachers and children in playground settings. In J.L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (eds.). When children plav. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Childhood Education International. Wagner, B.S. (1983). Assessing symbolic maturity through pretend play. In J.L. Frost & S. Sunderlin (eds.), When children play. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Childhood Education International. Walder, R. (1981). Psychoanalytic theory of play. In C. Schaefer (ed.) Therapeutic use of child's r  play. New York: Aronson. Watt, J. (1985). In-service education: An opportunity for growth? Educational Review. 35. (2), 195-200. Weininger, 0. (1979). Plav and education - the basic tool for early childhood learning. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Weininger, 0. & Muskat. J. (1978). Madison Avenue School. Orbit 42. 9. (2), 15-17. Werner, L.M. (1986). Pressure cited as harmful. The New York Times. Sunday, November 16. White, H. (1979). Your family is good for vou. New York: Berkley Books. Wolfgang, C.H. (1977). Helping aggressive and passive preschoolers through Plav. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Wood, F.H.; Thompson, S.R. & Russel, F. (1981). Designing effective staff development programs. In B. Dillon-Peterson (ed.), Staff development/organization development. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Woodard, C. (1983). Guidelines for facilitating sociodramatic play. In J.L. Frost, & S. Sunderlin (eds.), When children plav. Wheaton, Md.: Association for Childhood Education International. Yawkey.T.D.; Dank.H.L.&Gl8senger, F.L. (1986). Playing inside and out. New York: Technomic Publishing Co.  160  APPENDIX A PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED STUDY TO THE TEACHERS Title of Study "An In-service Model for Training the Teacher in Facilitating the Play of the Emotionally Disturbed Child." As part of the requirements towards my M.A. degree in Special Education, I am preparing an in-service teacher training model to help develop these skills. This model hopes to provide both some of the play techniques needed as well as looking at finding the "child within" each of us and how this can enhance our own play abilities. Thus, by using a variety of delivery systems, including video, group discussion and formal presentation, I hope to offer a series of workshops which can add to both professional and personal enrichment. If you are willing, the training will occur during 6 consecutive staff meeting times. Your director has already given her consent. However, it is important that each of you feel comfortable with the idea. Consequently, you are encouraged to think about it, discuss it together and your director will contact me with your response. To allow for a statistical evaluation of the training process, you will be asked to: (i) Complete a self-evaluation, both before and after the workshops, to assess your habitually used skills in facilitating play. (ii) Participate in a private interview after the training to verify your choices, to gage any additional information which may have impact on the results and to learn of any suggestions you may have. (iii) Complete a background information sheet. You will not be identified other than by a letter for statistical purposes. The information required is to see the effect of certain variables on the results. To provide a reliability check for my study, two independent observers will observe you in the program both before and after the training to assess your habitually used skills according to the same criteria as used in the selfevaluation. It must be stressed that this is not an evaluation of your skills but of the effectiveness of the training content. I realize that participation in this study will be time consuming but I feel confident that you will find it beneficial on all levels and, hopefully, lots of fun! 161  I thank you for your time in meeting with me. Please feel free to ask any questions or to raise any concerns. You have the right to refuse to participate or to withdraw at any time this will in no way jeopardize your professional or work status.  162  APPENDIX B PRESENTATION TO THE PARENTS  This presentation followed a two hour discussion at a Parent Evening on the importance of play. As part of the requirements towards my M.A. degree in Special Education, I am preparing a series of workshops to increase teachers' skills in facilitating the play of your children. The teachers have expressed great interest in this and have agreed to set aside 6 staff meetings to do this training. To enable a reliable evaluation as to the effectiveness of the training content, two independent observers will observe the teachers at play with your children before and after the workshops. They will be observing teacher behaviours only and will in no way be assessing your children. However, as the observations need to be of teachers in a natural setting, I would like your consent for them to observe the teachers at play with the children in the program. You have the right to refuse consent or to withdraw your consent at any time without jeopardizing your child's place in the program. Please feel free to ask any questions or to raise any concerns you may have. If you do agree to this observation, I would appreciate it if you could fill in and sign the attached form. Thank you.  164  APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM: PARENT(S)/GUARDIANS  Principal Investigator: Dr. M. Csapo Phone: Investigator: Michele Aderem Phone: U.B.C. Department of Educational Psychology/Special Education  , the parents/guardians  I, We,  do/do not agree to the proposed of study of Michele Aderem entitled "A Holistic Approach to Training the Teacher in Facilitating the Play of the Emotionally Disturbed Child," which is to be undertaken at the centre which my child attends. Whilst I/We understand that my/our child and his/her behaviours are not the object of the study, I/We do know that observation will be made of teacher behaviours over a two week period whilst in play with the children. As no evaluation is being made of the children, my/our child will in no way be identified or assessed in this study. I/We understand that my/our consent may be withdrawn at any time and that this will in no way jeopardize his/her participation in the program. I/We understand that should I/We refuse to have my/our child, present during observations, he/she will be able to participate in activities with another teacher in a different room. I/We acknowledge receipt of a copy of this form.  Date:  . Signature  Printed Name  Signature  Printed Name  APPENDIX C Q-SORT STATEMENTS (THE BEHAVIOURAL ITEMS) AS THEY WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE RESPONDENTS.  (Each was typed on a separate slip of paper.)  DURING THE BLOCK OF UNSTRUCTURED, FREE PLAY TIME WITH CHILDREN, I... 1)  Engage in spontaneous physical movement such as twirling (a quick turn around of the whole body); skipping (rapid movement of feet, alternating as they touch the ground) and jumping (both feet leave ground simultaneously)  2) 3) 4)  Sit down Vocalize or sing to accompany an activity, e.g. "choo, choo train" Change her voice in order to imitate, e.g. To squeek like a mouse  5)  6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16)  Use my own voice (when in role).e.g. train sounds  Laugh Create pretend situations through verbalization, e.g. "This (wood) is a ladder." Create pretend situations through imitated actions, e.g. Pretending to chop wood.  Use objects for other than assumed purpose, e.g. A plate becomes a flying saucer." Use objects for assumed purpose, e.g. A hat is used as a hat. Drop my play role and return to being the teacher when new children enter the play group. Incorporate new children into the play group through the voice of my play role. e.g. "I'm Doctor, X, Welcome!" Incorporate the arts (music, dance and drama, arts & crafts) into play. Verbally encourage the child to explore material, e.g. "Let's see what the play-dough can do." Place clear limitations on the use of materials, e.g. No play-doh in house corner. (Does not refer to those related to safety concerns.)  Complete the child's activity for him if he is struggling, e.g. Building a space ship. 166  17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39)  Play without planning or organizing the play activities and role play with the children, e.g. Designating roles. Organize pretend activities and role playing by designating roles and planning the episode with the children. Use unusual labels and/or imagery as descriptions, e.g. "Look at the mudpuddle in the sky." Use concrete labels, e.g. "That is a hole in the sand." Play out events experienced in the child's life. e.g. Going to school. Play out events which exist in reality but not in the child's personal life, e.g. Going to get gas. Play out stories which are completely fantasy, even if they are sparked by a real stimulus, e.g. The doll goes on an adventure to "never-never land."  Stay in make-believe play for 2-5 minutes. (Refers to situation when no supervisory duty is called upon.)  Remain in make-believe play for at least 10-15 minutes. (Refers to situations when no supervisory duty is called upon.) Keep the room organized and tidy by picking up or making sure the children do so.  Watch in order to ensure the limits are maintained, e.g. No-one leaves the room. Manipulate objects, e.g. Emptying containers, pouring, filling. (No element of make-believe involved.) Build and construct, e.g. Lego, cutting and pasting. (No element of makebelieve involved.) Create a make-believe miniature world, e.g. With sand and trucks. (Does not involve role-playing.)  Play a story line with the children, taking on roles, e.g. Fire-fighter. Play games with pre-set rules, e.g. Lotto, hockey Play with one child at a time. Play with more than one child at a time. Address the child by his role character's name. e.g. "Fire-fighter, come here." Address the child by his real name when in play. Give directions. Repeat the child's words and/or verbally mirror his actions, e.g. "You're washing the dishes." Offer structured language exercises, e.g. Having the child complete a story. 167  40) 41) 42)  43) 44) 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) 50) 51) 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58)  59) 60)  Move furniture to accommodate play. e.g. To create cosy spaces; to widen areas. Leave furniture in place, to encourage play in fixed areas. Incorporate transitions and routines into play. e.g. "Drive your car to the restaurant for snack." (Includes transitions between two play episodes.) Cut play to allow for a smooth flow of the day's schedule, e.g. "It's nearly lunchtime, so we need to put away..." Use different areas of the room as play space. Use different materials to create play ideas, e.g. Boxes, dress-up clothes, blocks. Use the same materials in play. e.g. Lego Use the same area of the room as play space. Include the child's themes and/or interests and strengths in play. e.g. Playing moving; baby games; cats Remove the child from play to clean up a previous activity. Ask open-ended questions, e.g. "What happens if...?" Offer sensory experiences of smell, taste, and sound, e.g. Flowers, foods, raindrops. Encourage the child to visualize (to close his eyes and "see" a picture) and to verbally share this. Help the children enact past fieldtrips or stories. Play body-awareness games. e.g. Mirroring facial expressions; relaxation breathing. Watch the child's play from the side, without commenting, suggesting or taking on a role. Watch the child's play from the side, commenting and suggesting, e.g. "Doesn't your car need a road?" Join the child's on-going play by taking on a role. e.g. "Mr. Storekeeper, do you sell eggs?" Initiate play. e.g. By taking on a role and involving the child (I'm the firefighter, can you be the driver?") or by telling a story using miniature table toys. Widen play to involve others. e.g. "Lets go to the park where (X) is."  Add to the storyline by taking on a role. e.g. Being the zoo-keeper, when child plays being a tiger. 168  61) 62) 63) 64) 65) 66) 67) 68) 69) 70)  Add ideas for a continuation of the storyline when I move out of play. e.g. "Why don't you..." Teach through play. e.g. "Bring six diapers." Set limits through play. ("This is the fenced border.") Follow the child's lead and his ideas. Step out of play to teach, e.g. "Can you count..." Step out of play to set limits. e.g. "If you can't clean it up, we'll have to end this game." Use praise (comments directed at the child expressing approval or pleasure and contingent on an action of the child), e.g. "That's terrific!" Leave the children to continue the storyline by themselves (when exiting play). Involve other teachers to maintain play.e.g. "X, can you join our team?" Extend play to other children by adding props, e.g. Two bowls of food. (One for each child.)  169  APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS The aim of this evaluation is for you to assess your most and least habitually used skills in fostering play. There is no correct or wrong answer. The aim is to consider which behaviours you presently use. We also request that you provide us with some background information on yourself. Included in this kit are the following: a) these instructions b) a background information sheet  c) a large envelope containing paper slips with specific behaviours d) a set of small envelopes, and e) a return envelope  There is no time limit. First please complete the background information questionnaire. After you have completed the background questionnaire, your major task is to evaluate your most and least habitually used behaviours in fostering play by using a technique known as a Q-Sort. Each skill is printed on a slip of paper. Please ignore the numbers printed on them. These are purely for identification. To accomplish the Q-Sort, the following instructions have been provided. In order to understand the procedure, please read through the instructions once (including the "HINT") before you begin the sort. Preceeding each behaviour please read: "During free play time with the children, I..." 1.  2.  3.  Select the TWO behaviours that you feel are MOST habitually used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "A: Two MOST used behaviours." Select the TWO behaviours that you feel are LEAST habitually used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked  "I: Two LEAST used behaviours." From the remaining behaviours, select the five behaviours that you are next MOST used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "B: Five next MOST used behaviours."  170  feel  A.  From the remainng behaviours, select the five behaviours that you feel are next LEAST used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "H: Five next LEAST used behaviours." 5. From the remaining behaviours, select the eight outcomes that you feel are next MOST used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "C: Eight next MOST used behaviours." 6. From the remaining behaviours, select then eight behaviours that you feel are next LEAST used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "6: Eight LEAST used behaviours." 7. From the remaining behaviours, select the twelve behaviours that you feel are next MOST used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "D: Twelve next MOST used behaviours." 8.  From the remaining behaviours, select the twelve behaviours that you feel are next LEAST used. Place them ON TOP of the envelope marked "F: Twelve next LEAST used behaviours."  9.  Place the remaining sixteen behaviours ON TOP of the envelope marked "E: Sixteen remaining behaviours." Arrange the envelopes with the behaviours piled on them in alphabetical sequence (A,B,C...). The outcomes should now be arranged from most important to least important, with the envelopes holding 2,5,8,12,16,12,8,5, and 2 behaviours respectively. Review your choices. If you wish to EXCHANGE some of the behaviours this time, please do so. The only restriction is to keep the appropriate numbers of behaviours on the envelopes. When you are satisfied that the priorization is as you wish, please insert the behaviours in the appropriate envelopes and seal them. Place all the nine small envelopes in the return envelope provided ALONG WITH YOUR COMPLETED BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE. Seal the return envelope and return it to your director.  10.  11.  12.  HINT: Some teachers have found that it is easier to complete the final sort if they do a preliminary sort while doing an initial reading of the behaviours. By sorting the behaviours into three piles of 'most used," "least used," and "occassionally used" or "unsure" on their first pass through, the selection of behaviours for the final sort becomes easier. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS. 171  APPENDIX E DIMENSIONS AND THE Q-SORTS BY WHICH THEY ARE MEASURED The Teachers' Playfulness in Play 7 2 8 3 9 4 10 5 11 6 12 The Teachers' Acceptance and Encouragement of Playfulness 13, 14, 15, 16 Imaginativeness of Make-Believe Play 17 18 19 20 35 36  3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12  Fantasy in Make-Believe Play 21, 22, 23 Concentration 24, 25 Observed Choice of Non-Play Behaviours 26, 27  172  Observed Level of Play 28 32 29 33 30 34 31 Use of Language in Play 19 38 20 39 37 50 Structuring of the Play Space 40, 41, 44, 47 Organization of the Play Time 42,43 Use of Materials in Play 45,46 Observation & Assessment of the Child's Play 48, 49 Preparation of a "Scaffolding" for Play 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Level of Intervention in Play 55, 56, 57, 58 Methods of Intervention in Play 59 60 61 62 63 64  65 66 67 68 69 70  173  APPENDIX F ITEMS CLASSIFIED AS DESIRABLE, LESS DESIRABLE AND NEUTRAL "Desirable" Behaviours  "Less Desirable" Behaviours  1  2  3  5  4  10  6  11  7  15  8  16  9  17  12  20  13  24  14  26  18  27  19  28  25  29  30  32  31  33  34  36  35  37  40  38  42  39  44  41  45  43  48  46  50  47  51  49  52  55  53  56  54  65  57  66  58  67  59  68  174  "Desirable" Behaviours 60 ^eitol'^ehiivMrs  61 62  21  63  22  64  23  69 70  175  APPENDIX G INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION CHECKLIST 1)  Engages in spontaneous physical movement such as twirling  2) 3)  Sits down Vocalizes, sings or changes voice in order to imitate, e.g. "choo, choo train" or squeeking like a mouse Includes Q-Sort item 4)  5)  Uses own voice (when in role), e.g. train sounds Laughs Creates pretend situations through verbalization and/or imitated actions, e.g. "This (wood) is a ladder" or pretending to chop wood. Includes Q-Sort item 8)  6) 7)  9) 11) 12) 13) 14) 17) 18) 19)  (a quick turn around of the whole body); skipping (rapid movement of feet, alternating as they touch the ground) and jumping (both feet leave ground simultaneously)  Use objects for other than assumed purpose, e.g. A plate becomes a flying saucer." (Includes Q-Sort item 10) Drops play role and returns to being the teacher when new children enter the play group. Incorporates new children into the play group through the voice of play role. e.g. "I'm Doctor, X, Welcome!" Incorporates the arts (music, dance and drama, arts & crafts) into play. Verbally encourages the child to explore material, e.g. "Let's see what the play-dough can do." Plays without planning or organizing the play activities and role play with the children, e.g. Designating roles. Organizes pretend activities and role playing by designating roles and planning the episode with the children. Uses unusual labels and/or imagery as descriptions, e.g. "Look at the mudpuddle in the sky."  20)  Uses concrete labels, e.g. "That is a hole in the sand."  21) 22)  Plays out events experienced in the child's life. e.g. Going to school. Plays out events which exist in reality but not in the child's personal life, e.g. Going to get gas. 176  23)  24) 25) 26) 27)  Plays out stories which are completely fantasy, even if they are sparked by a real stimulus, e.g. The doll goes on an adventure to "never-never land." Stays in make-believe play for 2-5 minutes. (Refers to situation when no supervisory duty is called upon.) Remains in make-believe play for at least 5-10 minutes. (Refers to situations when no supervisory duty is called upon.) Keeps the room organized and tidy by picking up or making sure the children do so. (Includes Q-Sort item 49) Sets and maintains limits including the use of materials, e.g. No-one leaves the room. (Includes Q-Sort items 15 and 66)  28)  Manipulates objects, e.g. Emptying containers, pouring, filling. (No element of make-believe involved.)  29)  Builds and constructs, e.g. Lego, cutting and pasting. (No element of makebelieve involved.)  30) 31) 32) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 40) 44) 45) 50) 51) 52) 53)  Creates a make-believe miniature world, e.g. With sand and trucks. (Does not involve role-playing.) Plays a story line with the children, taking on roles, e.g. Fire-fighter. (Includes Q-Sort items 57 and 60)  Plays games with pre-set rules, e.g. Lotto, hockey Plays with more than one child at a time. Addresses the child by his role character's name. e.g. "Fire-fighter, come here." Addresses the child by his real name when in play. Gives directions. Repeats the child's words and/or verbally mirrors his actions, e.g. "You're washing the dishes." Moves furniture to accommodate play. e.g. To create cosy spaces; to widen areas. Uses different areas of the room as play space. Uses different materials to create play ideas, e.g. Boxes, dress-up clothes, blocks. Asks open-ended questions, e.g. "What happens if...?" Offers sensory experiences of smell, taste, and sound, e.g. Flowers, foods, raindrops. Encourages the child to visualize (to close his eyes and "see" a picture) and to verbally share this. Helps the children enact past fieldtrips or stories. 177  54) 55) 56) 58)  61) 62) 63) 65) 67)  68)  Plays body-awareness games, e.g. Mirroring facial expressions; relaxation breathing. Watchs the child's play from the side, without commenting, suggesting or taking on a role. Watchs the child's play from the side, commenting and suggesting, e.g. "Doesn't your car need a road?" Initiates play. e.g. By taking on a role and involving the child (I'm the firefighter, can you be the driver?") or by telling a story using miniature table toys.  Adds ideas for a continuation of the storyline when I move out of play. e.g. "Why don't you..."  Teachs through play. e.g. "Bring six diapers." Sets limits through play. ("This is the fenced border") Steps out of play to teach, e.g. "Can you count..." Uses praise when in play (comments directed at the child expressing approval or pleasure and contingent on an action of the child), e.g. "That's terrific!"  69) 70)  Leaves the children to continue the storyline by themselves (when exiting play). Involves other teachers to maintain play. e.g. "X, can you join our team?" Extends play to other children by adding props or ideas. e.g. Two bowls of food. (One for each child.) or "Let's go and visit (X)."  Notes: - Q-Sort items 16, 48 and 64 were considered too subjective for direct observation. - Q-Sort Items 33, 46 and 47 were measured indirectly by their opposite behaviours (items 34, 44 and 45). - As Q-Sort items 42 and 43 measured behaviours which would occur at most once or twice during an observation period, these were omitted from direct observation.  178  APPENDIX H INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS The 36 minute period is divided into 6 time blocks of 5 minutes each. During each time block you will observe the corresponding behaviours. A buzzer will indicate the end of each time block. Between each time block you will be given I minute to record the 17 behaviours observed. You are asked to record with a check, every time each of the 17 behaviours is observed. Time Block 1:  (Behaviours 1 1-7)  Minutes 1 -- 5 (1 minute to record)  Time Block 2: (Behaviours 18-34)  Minutes 6-11 (1 minute to record)  Time Block 3: (Behaviours 35 - 51)  Minutes 12-17 (1 minute to record)  Time Block 4: (Behaviours 1-17)  Minutes 18-23 (1 minute to record)  Time Block 5: (Behaviours 18 - 34)  Minutes 24 - 29 (1 minute to record)  Time Block 6: (Behaviours 35-51)  Minutes 30 - 35 (1 minute to record)  179  APPENDIX I AN EXAMPLE OF THE CHECKLIST FOLLOWED BY THE RATERS Subject's Initial:  Date: Time: Recorder:  Frequency Count Behaviour Observed  Time Block 1:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  180  •  Time Block 4:  APPENDIX J AVERAGE RELIABILITY PER ITEM Reliability  Average Reliability  Items 1 2 3  Percentage 100% 91.8% 79.6%  5 6 7 9 11 12  84.8% 86.7% 96.7%  86.6%  88.8% 86%  13 14 17 18 19 20  60% 83.6% 85.7% 73% 69% 84.2% 92.2% 91.5%  21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  100% 97.9% 100% 83.6% 94%  88.9% 82.4% 88.1%  29 30 31 32 34  88.8% 100%  83.9% 94.4%  35  181  Reliability Items  Average Reliability Percentage 98.6% 79.7%  36 37 38 40  95.4% 80.3%  44  93.7% 94.5%  45 50  68.8% 95%  51 52  100% 77.7% 89.5% 100%  53 54 55 56  82.8% 89.5% 93.7% 72.2% 91.3% 100% 92.8% 87.7% 93.8% 77.9%  58 61 62 63 65 67 68  69 70  182  APPENDIX K IMPLEMENTATION FORM I CREATING AN ATMOSPHERE OF FANTASY: QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER. J)  Which ideas did you try to foster the child's make-believe play?  2)  What helped or could have helped implementation?  3)  What hindered implementation?  4)  With which child(ren) was it more successful?  5)  With which child(ren) was it least successful?  6)  What made implementation more difficult with this (these) child(ren)?  183  Was it easier/more difficult to implement make-believe ideas in  certain areas of the room or with certain props? If yes, please specify.  Did you find it easier to engage in make-believe play yourself?  If yes, what made it easier?  If no, what hindered?  What could have helped?  Were ideas for make-believe presented clearly enough and with sufficient ideas for practical application?  184  APPENDIX L IMPLEMENTATION FORM II Note: The aim of this exercise is to identify one play situation in which you were engaged and to examine it in detail (following the questions). The solutions to problems should come from a team approach brainstorming for ideas both to expand play and to alleviate obstacles. I)  Describe one play situation in which you were involved today.  2)  Which ideas did you use to foster the fantasy.make-believe element? (Tick those that worked well.)  the names of the children involved and the area of the room).  (Include  a) Was the implementation of your ideas hampered? If yes, how?  3)  How did you use the space and materials (please be specific). (Tick those that worked well.)  a) Did the space and/or materials limit play? If yes, how?  185  Methods I tried to initiate, extend or sustain play: (Tick those that worked well.) Include any teaching or limit-setting through play.)  a) What hampered implementation?  In answering the following a), b), c) and d), please consider "self and  programming issues:  a) What enabled me to play?  b) What prevented me from playing?  c) What could have helped?  d) What did I do differently from yesterday?  186  APPENDIX M PRE-POST Q-SCORES Items  1  2 3 4 5  Pre  6  6 6  6 3  3 8 3 5 4  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  6 4 4 6 7 3 4 6 6 7 7 7 3 4 5 4 3  20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  Post  7  6 7 8  17 18 19  A  5 3 5  3 7 3 5 4 4 6 7 3 6 5 5 7 5 4 4  8 4 3 4 1 3 5 4  7  B  C  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  5  6  8  9  3 6  3 5  7  5 J 4 5  4 5 6 5 5 3 6 6 2 5 6  3 6 4 5 2 6 5 8 4 3 4 8  7 4 4 7 5 4 3 3 7 8 1 5 6 8 5 4 5 4 7 5 4 4 6 4 6 3 5  187  5 4  5 7 5 7 4 5 7 5 5 5 3 3 6 9 5 5 3 6 3 4 4 2 8  4 6 2 7 5 6 7 5 7 7  6 7 4 6 4 9 4 4 3 6 1 4 3 2 5  D  Pos 7  2 5  5 4  8  8  6 5 5 6 5 3 6 6  5 8 7  3 6 7 3 5 5 6 4 6 5 5  2 3 6  6  4 2 3 5  5 5 5 5 5 3  1  3 4 4  7 5 5 6 8 1 5 4  Items  29 30 3!  32  33 34  35 36 37  38 39 40 41 42 43 44  45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  A  B  C  D  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  5 4 5  6 4 5  9 8  9 4  2 5  3 3  7 8  8 4  8 2  7 8 1  3 1  6 3  7 5  4 7  2 8 5 4 8 6  8  2 8 6  5 8 3 2 6 4 5  5 4 4 1 5 4 6 7 5 7 7 5 3 5  1  2 6 8 8 8 5 5 3 5 5  4 6 6 3 6 5 7 5 7 6 9 6 2 5 2  6 9 6 4 6 5 4 7 7 6 5 7 1 7 7 5 4 7 4 2 8 8 7 6 6 3 5 4  3  3 9 6 3 1 8 5 6 8 4 6 3 5 3 5 7 7 4 8 5 5 6 3 6 6 6 2 2 2  188  5 3 1 1 5 2 4 4 8 6 3 6  4 6 7 2 5 2 4 6 9 7 7 6 4 6  5 8 6  2 2  4 5  6 8 7 7 3 8  5 5 6 4 6 4 5 6 8 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 5  2 6  8 4 9 5 7 6 3 5  4 7 5 4 4 9 5 7 6 7 1 3 2 6 6  3 8  5 4 4 6 6 5 5 6 6 4 4 5 7 5 6 7  2 2 3  Items  60 61 62 63 64 65 66  67 68 69 70  A  B  C  D  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  6 5 6 5  5 4 4 5  4 5 3 4  5 5 5 4  5 7  2 5 4  4 4  5  2 6 4  4 3  7 1  2 9 6 2 9  5 4  2 9 6  5 7 4  2  2 5 2  7 5  3 3  5 6 7 5 7 2 2  189  8  4 5 6 4 3 4 7 6  5 6 2 6  4 5  5 5  6 1 4 4  7 4  7 8 1 3  7 5  APPENDIX N INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION PRE-POST SCORES Items  1 2  3 5  6 7  9 1! 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  32  A  B  C  D  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  Pre  Post  0  0 13  0 13  0  0  0  0  15 5.5  3.5 16  0 14  17.5 4.5 14 6 4  2 14  2 0 4.5 17 3.5 1.5 7.5 3.5 6.5 0 2 0 7 29 8 5.5 3.5 7 0  8 17.5 6.5 8.5 4.5 4 8.5 8.5 11 9 2 6 15 7 8 3 6 11 5 2.5 8.5 11 0  5 3  0 17  12  7.5 10.5 6.5 12.5 4.5 11  0 1.5 0 2.5 4.5 7.5 18.5 10 2 7 0 4.5 6.5 2.5 3 5.5 5.5 11 0 4 3 7 0 2 19 11.5 31.5 13.5 10.5 6 11 8.5 2 2 0  6.5 6.5 0  190  10  2.5 19 3.5 2  0 17.5 0 0  2.5 19.5 0 0 7.5 1 4.5 0 0 0 3.5 27 11 15 1 2.5 7  5.5 5 12 5 12  4.5 12 2 1.5 5 13 7 4 4.5 4.5 10 6 5 1 2.5 11 7.5 11 5 8 0  22  2 18.5 5.5 2 0  16.5 0 0 3.5 16 0 0 2.5 3 3 0  2 0 7.5 21 9.5 11  2.5 1 0  8 5.5  5.5 15 7.5 9.5  2 5 10.5 1 1 9 7 2 4 9 6 6.5 2 5.6 11.5 4 7 8.5 10 0  Items  A Pre Post  12 11  17 12 3 9.5  4  5.5  34 35  9 2.5  38 40 44  12 2.5  36 37  45 50 51  52 53  54 55 56 58 61 62 63 65 67 68 69 70  8  1.5 0 0 1  0 5 9 5.5 0 0 2 0 19 19 5.5 5  B Pre 7 1 18 14  14.5 5 10 11  18 10.5  4  5  2  7.5 7.5  12 1.5  22 5 10 1 2.5  6  3.5 2 5 13.5 7.5 2.5 10 0 12 13 18  11.5  C Post Pre  1 0 0 1.5  0 10 10.5 4 0 0 0 0 18 22 6 2.5  4 5.5  15  4.5 4 1 2  3 3 8.5 9.5 4 3 5 0  9.5 15.5 15.5 7.5  191  4.5 0  Post 12 6  8.5 8  16.5 1  12.5 5  6  14  2.5  Pre  D Post  2.5 0  7.5 7  19 0  10 3.5 4  14 9 12.5 10.5  3 7  0 0  2.5 4.5  0 0 0 0  0 10 11 2 0 0 0 0  3 3 7.5 8 5 0 9 0  1.5  6  0 14 11.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 17 14.5 2 3  0 0  11.5 21 4.5  0 1  9.5 16 14  17.5 4.5 10 3 3  5.5 4 8 10 7.5 3 9 0  12.5 11.5 15.5 9.5  APPENDIX 0 OVERALL MEAN PRE/POST SCORES: INDEPENDENT OBSERVATION Items  1 2 3 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35  192  Pre  Post  0 15.6 3.1 16.8 475 2.75 0.5 16.2 0.05 0 3.75 17.8 1.4 0.38 6.0 2.7 4.9 0 1.71 0 9.2 27.1 9.8 10.6 2.26 3.0 1.7 5.8 0.8  0 11.1 8.8 41 8.9 1425 5.8 10.25 2.5 3.25 7.9 10.6 8.5 6.1 4.5 2.8 11.29 5.71 6.6 2.0 6.4 11.71 5.6 7.21 7.0 8.8 0 12.8 7.5  Items 36 37  Pre 15.5 12  38 40 44 45 50  14.9 1.2  3.25 6.8 0.5  51 52  0 0 0.5 0 10.0 10.5 3.2  53 54 55 56  58 61  0 0 0.5 0 16.4 19.0 4.5 3.0  62 63 65 67 68 69 70  193  Post 7.6 9.8 8.5 5.4  4.25 17.0 4.0 7.0 1.2  2.0 3.8 3.0  7.2 10.2  10.0 6.0 8.2 0 10.9 14.0 16.0 8.6  APPENDIX P T-TEST SCORES Items  T-Test Score  1  0  2 3 5 6 7 9  -3.15 3.31 -5.25 2.89 1126 7.0  11  -16.9  18 19 20 21 22 23  8.62 7.39 -3.09 4.60 8.87 9.13  12 13 14 17  9.79 4.18 4.09 -8.37  24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35  11.41 4.89 -1.84 -7.63 -6.99 -9.0 11.41 5.10 -1.0 10.33 5.79  194  Items 36 37 38 40  T-Test Score -7.81 -6.97 -5.10 13.1  44 45  50 51  4.89 7.90 8.57 4.28  54 55  6.30 -4.70  52 53  1.98 2.77  -7.50 9.51  56 58  6.74 2.95 10.79 0 -3.84 -6.62 10.91 10.9  61 62 63 65 67 68 69 70  195  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items