0940649

An ethnographic study of how children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school use fantasy

violence in their play.

“It’s alright, he lets us play” (Arif)

1

0940649

An ethnographic study of how children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school use fantasy

violence in their play.

Chapter One.

1. Introduction.

1.1 A description of this study’s educational establishment.

1.2 The historical context of this thesis.

1.3 The rationale for the research: “Getting Arif wrong.”

1.4 A statement of the main aims.

1.5 Research questions.

Chapter Two.

2. The Literature Review.

2.1 Introduction.

2.2 The importance of children’s autonomy over play choice.

2.3 Is play always seen as important?

2.4 Barriers to play practice.

2.5 The need for playful practitioners.

2.7 A zero tolerance of war, weapon and fantasy violence play.

2.8 A review of literature advocating the value of accepting and engaging in children’s fantasy violence play.

2.9 “Stressful Surveillance” and the, “Invisible Playground” (Jarvis, 2007).

2.10 Conclusion.

2

0940649

2.11 Research questions.

Chapter Three.

3. Research Methodology

3.1 A justification for adopting an ethnographic approach with a social constructivist worldview.

3.2 A discussion on the researchers “Positionality” (Cresswell, 2009).

3.3 Methods.

3.4 Understanding ethnography and the ethnographic style of approach.

3.5 Data Collection Methods.

3.5.1 The methodology behind the construction of this study’s sample.

3.5.2 Adopting a participatory role within the process of data collection.

3.6 Observation Methods.

3.7 Ethics

3.7.1 Ethical challenges in participant observation.

3.7.2 Informed Consent.

3.7.3 Honesty, trust, and a truthful presentation of data.

3.7.4 Intrusion.

3.7.5 Advocacy

3.7.6 Intervention

3.7.7 Privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity.

3

0940649

3.8 Data analysis

3.9 Conclusion

Chapter Four.

4. Data Analysis.

4.1 A discussion on the limitations, reliability, validity and generalisability of the data.

4.2 A reminder of the research questions underpinning the analysis of data collected in this ethnography.

4.3 A discussion of the ethnography’s main findings in relation to the research questions.

4.3.1 The children used fantasy violence play to support their skills in the rehearsal and creation of

innovative narratives, significantly impacting on their attainment in Communication, language and

Literacy.

4.3.2 When engaging in fantasy violence play, the children in this observed reception cohort displayed

an understanding of the empathy towards the thoughts and feelings of others, the ability to resolve

conflict and to show care and concern for each other.

4.3.3 The children used fantasy violence themed play to improve child self agency.

4.3.4 The Children in this reception cohort used fantasy violence themed play to develop their

understanding of rule making, rule negotiation and share with others a moral sense of what’s right

and wrong.

4.4.4 The incorporation of childhood cultural influences, connected to fantasy violence play, within the

learning environment extended the time the children spent engaged in socio dramatic play.

4.4.5 The majority of female practitioners and teachers supporting this cohort displayed prejudices

towards rewarding the creative play of the girls while showing a zero tolerance towards the boys'

adventurous fantasy play.

4

0940649

4.4.6 A zero tolerance approach towards fantasy violence themed play, developed by the boys,

increased the incidences of children displaying, “Mistaken Behaviours.” (Gartrell, 1995).

4.4.7 The children who enjoyed engaging in fantasy violence themed play often hid their socio

dramatic play away from certain practitioners conducting surveillance over the learning environment.

4.4.8 The majority of practitioners supporting this reception cohort were reluctant to engage in the

children’s play.

4.4.9 When adults engaged in the children’s autonomously created fantasy violence play, the value of

such play became apparent and allowed for a “Symbiotic Learning Relationship” (Pascal and Bertram,

1997) to be created through which the narrative of the play was shared, sustained and enjoyed by

both the adults and the children.

4.4.10 A lack of “play practice” skills and theoretical and understanding of the value of play were

identified as barriers to practitioners developing shared and sustained moments of play with the

children in this reception cohort.

Chapter Five.

5. Conclusion.

5.1 A summary of the work undertaken in this ethnographic study.

5.2 A discussion of the research questions in relation to the analysis of the observed data collected in the

ethnography.

5.3 Recommendations for the improvement of the schools practice.

5.3.1 The school needs to develop the professional skills of it early years practitioners so that within

their “play practice”, each adult is able to engage, enrich and deepen the fantasy play of all children.

5.3.2 The school needs to support practitioners and teachers by providing time for them to use their

developing theoretical knowledge on the value of play, improve the quality of the play environments

they create and develop their own play practice.

5

0940649

5.3.3 To overcome the barrier to engaging in children’s play presented by “Stressful Surveillance,”

(Jarvis, 2007) the schools senior leaders need to ensure that practitioners adhere to the adult: child

ratio’s assigned to the reception and nursery garden spaces.

5.3.4 The school needs to collectively review its position with regards to the seemingly self adopted

zero tolerance approach displayed by members of staff to the fantasy violence themed socio dramatic

play of the boys.

5.3.5 A Professional Learning Community should be created which challenges the existing play cultures

of the adults in school, with the intention of creating a new shared culture towards play and a shared

understanding of the need for playful practitioners.

5.3.6 The knowledge discovered through this ethnography places its researcher in a position in which

they could ethically develop a further action research project which explores the impact of fantasy

violence play on children’s self agency.

5.4 Conclusion

6. Reference List

7. Appendix

7.1 The Research Journal.

6

0940649

An ethnographic study of how children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school use fantasy

violence in their play.

Chapter One.

1. Introduction.

1.1 A description of this study’s educational establishment.

The school is a larger than average sized infant school. The overwhelming majority of the pupils are of minority

ethnic background and three quarters of learners are new to English or bilingual. There is a steady increase of

eastern European families and refugees. The take up of free school meals is lower than the national average,

as is the number of pupils who have identified special needs.

1.2 The historical context of this thesis.

In February 2006, the results of a pupil questionnaire exercise indicated that 28% of the children did not

always feel safe in this infant school. In 2007, the responses rose to 31%. From 2007, the schools senior

leadership team introduced a range of strategies to try and find a possible solution to this issue, including a

teacher and parents working group. By February 2010, 33% of the children’s feedback collected during

conferencing and questionnaires indicated that they did not always feel safe in the classroom, with18%

communicating that they only felt safe some of the time to not at all. 54% of the children recorded that they

only felt safe some of the time to not at all in the schools playground.

The initial consideration of a focus for this thesis was the designing of an action research project through which

the theoretical ideas advocated in the literature of Jones (2002) Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence (1973) in

Compton-Lilly (2006),Paley (1988) and Rich (2003) could be explored. This literature discusses how fantasy

violence and superhero play supports children in improving their self agency, their ability to reposition their

self identity, develop a sense of power and cope with perceived fear. However, ethical action research requires

the designer of the initiative to ensure that the planned intervention is well informed by current research

literature and that data exists which supports an indication that the intervention is directly related to the

7

0940649

indentified issue and will impact on the issue in a positive way (Woods, 2006). This was not the position in

which the researcher was placed. The more the literature of Jones (2002); Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence

(1973); Compton-Lilly (2006);Paley (1988) and Rich (2003) was discussed with the schools staff, the greater a

concern grew over how much time was actually being spent by early year’s practitioners engaging with the

children in their fantasy play narratives.

The analysis of the children’s conferencing data collected in March 2012 identified that while data relating to

responses about feeling safe in school improved by 13%, 22% of the children shared the opinion that the

adults in the school didn’t always listen to them. The children also shared the view that, from their

perspective, increased adult engagement in their play would really improve their learning experiences and

make them feel safer. Many of the identified areas for staff development related to teachers and practitioners

working in this schools Foundation Stage Team identified a need for improving adult skills in responding more

effectively to children’s autonomously created play. When analysing the attainment of the children in this

reception cohort it was also observed that while their Foundation Stage Scale scores relating to Mathematics,

Phonics, Reading, Writing and Knowledge and Understanding of the World were all significantly higher than

national averages, the children’s Creative Development scores were at best in line with national scores,

indicating a concern over the provision the children experience connected to creative play.

In constructing a small scale social research project, the researcher should approach the project design by

identifying a “Triangulation” (Denscome, 2007) in data that establishes a problem to be studied. The data

collected in our March 2012 pupil conferences identified that 22% of the children felt the adults in the school

didn’t always listen to them, monitoring reports identified a need for the early year’s team to improve their

ability to engage in the children’s autonomously created play and the children’s creative development

attainment scores being lower than expected provided the three points of “Triangulation” (Denscome, 2007)

that suggested this thesis should in some form study the schools approach to creative play practice and the

children’s own autonomously created play.

1.3 The rationale for the research: “Getting Arif wrong.”

Arif is a five year old child learning in this schools reception year group. When observing Arif and his friends

engaging in their most favourite play choice, fantasy violence, Arif’s supervision of the group consistently

creates socio dramatic play of a high quality. This judgement was made when comparing the context and

8

0940649

content of the play with Bruce’s (2006) “Quality Play Charter”. In one observation session, Arif’s teacher was

invited to sit and watch the group playing out their fantasy violence narrative. During this time Arif invented

the groups play narrative, shared innovative ideas and creative language. He negotiated arguments over

narrative development to a compromised conclusion and stopped the play when a peer fell over to make sure

he wasn’t hurt. Arif’s teacher watched, and then commented, “I always thought he was quiet, not very clever,

not really wanting to do anything apart from mess about with Dillan. I got him wrong.” (Research Journal, pg.

37)

Arif explained that he doesn’t let teachers see his or his friends play because they don’t like it; he saves it for

the big playground where he and his friends can’t always be seen. He apparently conforms to expectations, a

zero tolerance of such play, but secretly engages in his favourite form of play in seemingly invisible spaces.

After observing, playing and sharing conversations with Arif and his friends, a rationale for this thesis began to

form. The zero tolerance approach displayed by adults to accepting Arif’s play choices meant that he moved

both his play and that of his closest friends into invisible places away from possible adult interaction.

Watching Arif and his friends play provided the researcher with a sense of ecology, an understanding of why

this focus for the thesis was personally important. Feiersinger et al (2008) describes how schools should

create, “Nostalgic Histories” for children, memories of school life that the children will take with them

throughout their lifelong learning experiences. This has indeed been the case with regards to the researcher’s

decision to create a study that explores how children use fantasy violence in their play:

“I remember how my early year’s teacher, Mrs Rollins, allowed us to create our own school play about He-Man. We made

our own costumes, excitedly created the plays story including many make believe fight scenes. Through sharing in our play

Mrs Rollins scribed our narrative. Looking back, Mrs Rollins must have understood how important this play was to a group

of children growing up in a difficult council estate environment. She ensured this “show” was shared with the whole school

in an assembly performance. I remember sitting on the carpet talking with Mrs Rollins, sharing He Man stories and

endlessly reacting plays as she listened to us, joined in our play and shared in our excitement. I fail to see any such

experiences of shared and sustained high quality play in our early years practice.” (Research Journal, pg. 2)

The new Early Years Foundation Stage Framework will take effect from September 2012, the Children’s

Minister Sarah Teather has also communicated the “Government’s wider vision” to free professionals to focus

on their interaction with children. Yet, the failure to observe and understand how children use fantasy violence

play to support their learning has resulted in this schools practitioners and teachers effectively reducing the

9

0940649

language of play through which they can engage and interact with certain children in this cohort. The research

literature of Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence (1973) illustrates how when children and adults fail to connect

meaningfully within shared and sustained learning environments, such as Arif and his teacher, the self esteem

of young learners can be damaged and ultimately lead to cumulative failure, resulting inevitably in comments

like, “I got him wrong.”

1.4 A statement of the main aims.

This ethnography aims to identify how the children in this reception cohort use fantasy violence to support

their learning; it also aims to identify the barriers that prevent adults from engaging in the children’s

autonomously created play, reducing the language of play through which they could develop their interaction

with the children.

1.5 Research questions.

How do the children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school use fantasy violence in their play?

What are the barriers that stop the adult practitioners working in this early year’s team from engaging with the

children in their autonomously selected play choices?

Chapter Two.

10

0940649

2. The Literature Review.

2.1 Introduction.

This chapter discusses the value of children’s fantasy violence play, barriers which prevent adults from

engaging in children’s play and how a zero tolerance of children’s preoccupations with this form of play

significantly reduces the language of play through which adults can interact with children. While Smith (2005)

identifies that there are four main types of play: Functional play, constructive play, rule governed play and

socio dramatic play, this thesis will focus on the socio dramatic qualities of fantasy violence play. Pellegrini

(2008) and Miller and Almon (2009) define socio dramatic play as a pretend play with others, a social drama

which involves children engaging in sustained role taking, the development of narrative lines for their play, the

understanding others intent, sophisticated language constructions and the development of novel and intricate

story lines which challenge the engaged children to negotiate meanings, roles and arguments about

appropriate behaviours.

This review is organised using key themes which emerged from literature searches and thoughts recorded in

this thesis’s research journal (See Appendix). This review has been organised using what Wellington et.al

(2005) and Ridley (2008) would define as a “Funnelling” approach, reviewing literature initially that relates to

broad themes connected to autonomy of play choice, before reviewing references that relate more specifically

to fantasy violence play.

2.2 The importance of children’s autonomy over play choice.

This thesis adopts the view expressed by Lindon (2001) that the value of play is taken as a generally agreed

fact, this is supported by the research of Pelligini and Smith (1988) who identified that, with the exception of

children facing serve deprivation or disability, all children spend up to 20% of their time engaged in play and if

a child is derived of play within a formal classroom, they play longer and more vigorously afterwards. A

fundamental principle in the literature of high quality early years practice is the provision for choice and child

autonomy over play experiences within the learning environment. This principle can be identified in global

literature, from Eastern European authors such as Kooij and Posthumus Meyjes (1986) and Babic (2000), the

writing of Feiersinger et al (2008) discussing the 'Fuji Kindergarten’, in Tachikawa, Tokyo, to key principles of

developmentally appropriate practice for early years learning outlined within the policy of the United States:

11

0940649

“If children are allowed choices, they have a sense of control of the curriculum” (Bredekamp and Copple, 1996,

p127). Writers such as Hendrick (1996), Fordham and Anderson (1992) and Maxim (1997) have also

published literature highlighting the importance of the inclusion of time for children to engage in autonomous

play, discussing how autonomy over play choice allows the child to experience a feeling of being in control

over themselves and their learning journeys.

Children do need to develop an understanding of situations that allow them little choice, Gordon and Browne

(1996) rightly observe that at certain times, children need to understand that they have no choice for

individual preference, if that preference is dangerous. Miller and Almon (2009) also identify that too much

unstructured autonomy can lead to the creation of a play environment that is in “crisis”, chaotic and

disjointed. However, Gartrell (1995) argues that an absence of autonomy over play choice could result in the

child developing “Mistaken Behaviours.” This is where children may feel doubtful of their abilities, unable to

take risks that lead to real learning or challenge themselves to achieve at an even higher level. “Mistaken

Behaviours” (Gartrell, 1995) is a concept that Fordham and Anderson (1992); Babic (2000) and Maxim (1997)

agree with, while Edwards (1993) takes this concept further, contesting that without autonomy of play choice,

children may develop a feeling of hostility towards adults who allow them little freedom.

A recent research report compiled by Wolstenholme, et al (2010), identified that where children had the

opportunity to engage in, “Continuous provision” with unlimited time in which to develop their autonomous

play, they often demonstrated high levels of creativity, wider range of play interests and more complex play,

sustained their engagement in the learning for significantly longer periods of time and were distinctively more

involved in planning their learning with a practitioner who promoted the child’s interests. These findings are

supported by the literature of Fromberg (1995) and Maxim, (1997) who also observe in their studies that

autonomy over play choice results in a persistence to complete the play. Significantly, however, the findings

recorded in the report compiled by Wolstenholme, et al (2010) were not interpreted from observations made

on children learning in Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) settings, but from children attending a Steiner

School or in the care of child minders. Within all the EYFS settings engaged in this study, the children

communicated that not all of their play choices were accepted by adults. In its conclusion the report made two

significant critical comments:

12

0940649

1) “Although many of the findings reported here are consistent with themes, commitments and guidance in the

EYFS, it was also clear that there are omissions in the EYFS, in part due to the emphasis on children as receivers of

a curriculum generated by adults...” (Wolstenholme, et al (2010, pg 35)

2) “As highlighted by McNaughton et al (2007) and United Nations General Comment 7 (United National Committee,

2005), children have the right to express their views about, “The development of policies and services” and staff

should recognise the expert contribution children can make.” (Wolstenholme, et al. 2010, pg 33.)

Wolstenholme’s, et al (2010) report places into a modern context the historical literature of Erikson (1950);

Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Bettelheim (1987) whose literature also identifies that free, autonomous play

choice supported by flexible, maniplable resources promotes the most innovative and sustained experiences of

play. In establishing the importance of children’s autonomy over play choice, this review will now focus on

literature that discusses issues relating to Wolstenholme’s, et al (2010) identification that within EYFS settings

their seems to be a demise in the apparent importance of providing time for autonomously created play.

2.3 Is play always seen as important?

Play is a vital part of children’s development and is fundamental for every child (Ginsburg 2006). It is a right for

all children and offers them enjoyable experiences (Lester and Russell 2008; Jenkinson 2001). The literature of

Thompson (2000); Katch (2002); Bruce (2006); Pellegrini and Smith (1988) provide substantial evidence to

suggest that play is key to physical, mental and social well-being. Jones (2002); Holland (2003) and Paley (1998)

further link an engagement within fantasy play to a child’s ability in overcoming fears in everyday situations,

decision making, discovering interests, brain development and enhancing academic learning. Yet, despite

these benefits, there is literature to suggest less of children’s time is being devoted to play (Hofferth and

Sandberg 2000; Doherty and Clarkson cited in Lester and Russell 2008).

In the UK, current policy interventions in childhood are, conceived by Moss and Petrie (2002) as

‘Technical and disciplinary undertakings, concerned with regulation, surveillance and normalisation, instrumental in

rationality and purpose. The potentially diverse ethical and political imagination of the nursery becomes a purely technical

question: ‘what works?’ (Moss and Petrie, 2002. pg. 2).

Fielding (2001) identifies how a managerial discourse of ‘best practice’,’ investment’ and ‘excellence’ has come

to permeate preschool education, ‘deadening’ (Fielding, 2001) the nursery in the process. Fielding (2001) has

remarked, in the nursery:

13

0940649

‘There seems to be no place for either the language or experience of joy, of spontaneity, of life lived in ways that are vibrant

and fulfilling rather than watchfully earnest, focused and productive of economic activity’ (Fielding, 2001. pg. 9).

Moss (2002) is dismayed not simply by the joylessness of current educational policy, but with its imposed

limits. “All the talk is of ‘meeting potential’, (Moss, 2002) such that ‘potential’ can be predetermined,

measured in advance; there is nothing of exceeding potential, of creativity and experimentation with the

unknown” (Moss, 2002 in Ward, 2005. Pg. 11). Moss (2002) laments: ‘It seems to me that we don’t allow any

possibility of new things happening ... All we will do is have a kind of template and check whether children fit

into it” (Moss,2002 in Ward, 2005 pg. 11). The Coalition’s Educational policy threatens to transform the school

system in England. As Stevenson (2011) identifies, “A combination of public spending cuts, and the drive to

making all schools academies, represents a key moment in the restructuring of the educational service along

neo-liberal lines” (Stevenson, 2011, pg 1). Stevenson (2011) argues that this represents a realisation of the

“1988 Project” or as he terms, “Thatcherism’s Long shadow” which will see a return to “Traditionalism”

(Stevenson, 2011). He observes that a much more vigorous educational “Free market” constructed along neo

liberal lines and greater parental choice, will, of its own volition, generate the pressures for traditional subjects

and “Standards”. This maybe an over simplistic view, but the primary school sector has arguably already

witnessed a return to “Traditionalism” (Stevenson, 2011) through the introduction of the formal testing of

phonics for all five year olds, with results reported back to parents in pass or fail terms. The literature of Elkind

(2008); Wood and Attfield (2005) and Blatchford (1992) all make further claims that as a consequence of “goal

orientation”(Blatchford, 1992) and a return to “Traditionalism” (Stevenson, 2011) schools feel an increasing

need to evidence performance and be accountable for standards and play has become an ‘unaffordable luxury’

in such a modern society, pushed aside to make way for organised activities which are seen as more

educational or target driven. On this point, Paley (2004) observes, ‘When our doll corners are furnished with

computers and charts, there may be too little time left for mermaids and mermen to escape danger and move

on to new identities and adventures’ (Paley, 2004: 52). Elkind (2008) claims that the role of play in developing

a child’s physical and psychological well-being, is now being ‘overlooked’ in many areas. He states:

‘School administrators and teachers – often backed by goal-orientated politicians and parents – broadcast the not-so-

suitable message that these days play seems superfluous, that at bottom play is for slackers, that if kids must play, they

should at least learn something while they are doing it.’ (Elkind 2008, pg.1)

14

0940649

For many of the teachers interviewed in the research of Smith (1998), although the process of “playing” was

seen as important, it was not necessarily related to the achievement of an end goal, play was often categorised

mainly as a recreation or an enriching activity, but not a context in which children worked towards a desired

learning goal. After identifying literature that indicates a decline in how educational policy makers and settings

may value play, it is important in the context of this review of literature to now identify the barriers that stop

those who do value play from engaging in children’s own autonomously created play.

2.4 Barriers to play practice.

The research of Howard (2010) identifies how parental attitude, inadequate training and understanding,

pressures to evidence learning outcomes and the availability of physical resources are four key barriers to the

implementation of play into practice. This study extensively references the research of Johnson (1994);

McMullen and Alat (2002); Cohen (2006); Cheng and Stimpson, (2004) and Mcinnes, et al (2009) who all also

observe that the psychological barriers to play practice include practitioner knowledge and understanding of

play, parental attitudes and related feelings of confidence in play practice. Howard (2010) argues that while

‘play’ featured in previous curriculum documentation and was advocated most notability not only in The

Plowden Report (Department of Education and Science, 1967) but also in The Education of Children under Five

recommendations (Department of Education and Science, 1989) and the Curriculum Guidance for the

Foundation Stage (Department for Education and Employment, 2000) for a variety of reasons, legislative

emphasis on play as a valuable context for learning has not necessarily guaranteed its implementation. The

literature of Wood and Attfield (2005) support this view by also suggesting that there is a discrepancy between

theoretical, legislative and pedagogical perspectives. Whilst legislation places play at the centre of the

curriculum for the early years, Wood and Attfield (2005) argue that most notably the increased guidance and

administration relating to the evidencing of learning objectives, has in fact moved schools towards delivering

more narrowly defined curriculums, ones that meet the issues presented to schools by the need to present

accountability and measured attainment. Blatchford (2004) further observes how many schools are now

extending more formal curriculum objectives into reception and nursery classes in order to increase the

possibility of achieving good results.

15

0940649

With regards to the barrier of, “Parental Influence” the practitioner responses in the research of Howard

(2010) and the literature of Wood and Attfield (2005) and Blatchford (2004) support the concerns raised by

Stevenson (2011), the main priority for the parents is success communicated to them through high attainment

scores in the Foundation Stage Profile.

Contrary to previous research projects (BERA, 2003), Howard’s (2010) research discovered that practitioners in

this study held an active role in children’s play, but, this role was generally described as that of the facilitator,

with very few practitioners in this study described as actually playing with the children. McInnes (2009) writing

in connection to this finding observes how a pedagogy of play relies on an adults valuing of children’s own

initiated play and that play in its purest forms raises the possibility of children engaging in types of play for

which practitioners are not always theoretically prepared. Howard’s (2010) research discovered that while one

third of the practitioners engaged in this study received no training in play at all, the levels of barriers to play

practice reported reduced with increasing levels of practitioners theoretical knowledge. This consideration of

low theoretical knowledge as a barrier to practitioner participation in play is identified in the literature of

McInnes (2009); Wood and Attfield (2005); Blatchford (2004); Holland (2003); Rich (2009); Jarvis (2007) and

Jones (2002). This literature presents a shared argument that if practitioners and teachers were more engaged

in theoretical discussion around the value of supporting children’s autonomously created play then their

perceived barriers to engaging in challenging choices of play maybe reduced.

2.5 The need for playful practitioners.

Regardless of curriculum guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA/DFEE, 2003) and Birth to Three Matters

(DFES, 2002) in England which emphasizes the value of play for young children, as discussed, children

experience fewer opportunities to play in part because of an emphasize on formal learning and target setting.

(Moyes, et al. 2003). The research of Sylva et al. (2003), which is acknowledged as one of the most significant

longitudinal studies to be conducted in England, leaves practitioners with little doubt about the value of high

quality play based experiences in settings staffed with qualified adults. The study found that warm interactions

with adults are vital to children’s intellectual development, as is “sustained shared thinking” (Blatchford, 2004)

between adults and children.

16

0940649

In this study’s school, practitioners have expressed the view that they “Know” play for children is a valuable

learning and developmental process, yet in general, this is rarely reflected in the curriculum they provide, in

planning, classroom management or in their perceptions of their roles connected to teaching and learning. As

Moyles and Adams (2006) observe, in Moyles (2006) “Practitioners unfortunately show their values daily in the

way they respond to children’s autonomous play “You can play when you’ve finished your work.” (Moyles,

2006 pg 7)

There is a need for playful practitioners in this school. Csikzentmihalya (1996) has likened the absorptions and

sense of total involvement that characterises children’s involvement in sustained bouts of play to a “flow”

state, observing, as does Blatchford (2004), that adults can recapture this, “flow” state, by engaging with

children in play contexts that allow the learner the autonomy and freedom to experiment without fear of

expensive or potentially embarrassing error. As Bruner (1972) wrote: “Play provides an excellent opportunity

to try combinations of behaviours that wouldn’t be tried under functional pressure.” (Bruner, 1972. Pg. 82).

While Vygotsky’s (1978) literature challenges Csikzentmihalya’s (1996) argument that adults should engage

within this “Flow” State, identifying that children need to set their own agenda’s and levels of challenge so

what they are doing is always developmentally appropriate, autonomy in the purest sense of the word, Guha

(1988) argues that the element of adult participant within autonomously created play is particularly significant.

Guha’s (1988) view is further supported by the literature of Smith (1990); Manning and Sharp (1977) and

Moyles (2006). Their extensive reviews on evidence relating to the discussions of structured and unstructured

play conclude that sensitive adult intervention can usefully enhance the intellectual challenge of play mainly by

opening up new opportunities and possibilities for further child autonomy over the plays developing narrative.

Practitioner engagement within children’s play choices provides them with the potential to, “liberate the

child’s voice” (Moyles, 2006, pg. 72) providing the adult with the tools they need to help the child transform

themselves and understand their world, a view notably shared by Vygotsky (1976). Bolton (1979) further

argues that it is the function of the teacher to enable the children to reflect on the significance of their play in

order to learn from it. Singer and Singer (1990, pg 152) suggest “Imaginative play is fun, but it the midst of the

joys of making believe, children may also be preparing for the reality of more effective lives” This range of

literature raises concerns that by not developing “Playful Practices” adults in fact remove the opportunity for

children to explore without feeling functional pressure, restrict the children’s experiences of intellectual

17

0940649

challenge and reduce the opportunities we have to support children in preparing for the realities and

complexities of modern life.

2.6 Arguments against the benefits of fantasy violence play.

It has been established that schools should develop, “Playful Practice”, nonetheless, if practitioners are to

become more informed about the theoretical knowledge which discusses the importance of engaging in

children’s autonomous play (even if such choices challenge the practitioner) and therefore possibly more

prepared to engage in supporting such play within their practice, theoretical perspectives must be presented in

a balanced way. A way through which the practitioner can consider various points of view before deciding

upon the importance of accepting challenging play choices.

The relations between an early interest in fantasy violence play and children’s social understanding, antisocial

and emotional behaviour, and interactions with friends, was examined by Dunn and Hughes (2001). Their

study explored the usefulness of a focus on the content of children’s pretend play, in particular, fantasy

violence, as a window on children’s preoccupations with such play choices. Their study focused on whether the

pretend play of young, “hard to manage” children reflected a particular interest in violent fantasy play. In their

sample of children from a deprived urban community in south London, it was observed that those who

engaged in frequent fantasy play were especially good at understanding others thoughts and feelings,

especially of those with whom they had close relationships with. In the context of communicating with a

friend, they communicated relatively smoothly with few failed attempts at conversation and with little conflict

and were responsive to their friends needs. While Dunn and Hudges (2001) rightly state that conclusions about

casual connections between pretend play and friendship cannot be drawn from this one study’s correlation,

they discuss findings that identify how children sharing pretend play in a fantasy world foster intimacy and

shared enjoyment and that such shared play flourishes when children already like each other and are eager to

share the development of the pretend narrative and to resolve conflict about the course of the play.

Their study observed that the, “Hard to manage” children whose pretend play included themes of violent

fantasies were less frequently engaging in pretence than the children whose play did not include any make

believe violence themes. They also observed that for those children who included fantasy violence themes in

their play, their use of language and their understanding of the thoughts of others were modestly lower than

18

0940649

children who did not include such themes in their play. Their research identified that for those children who

most needed to develop their understanding of others thoughts, empathy and the language skills relating to

conflict resolution, fantasy violence themed play was a significant preoccupation. Dunn and Hudges (2001)

suggest that their findings are compatible with the idea that violent fantasy play choices are particularly

evident amongst children whose goals are more to pursue their own immediate interests than to coordinate

harmoniously with those of a friend.

There exists a range of literature that support discussions around negative values connected to fantasy

violence play. Carlsson-Paige and Levin (1990) report that some of the negative effects on children’s behaviour

include the following:

“An obsession or preoccupation with war play and with products related to programs promoting such play, increased levels

of aggression among children as they imitate what they see in programs, and a lack of creativity and imagination in play

because the content of children’s play originates in TV cartoons or other media.” (Levin & Carlsson-Paige, 1995, pg. 67-71)

The research findings of Smith-Sutton (1988) in Galda and Pellegrini (1985) share further concerns. Their

studies in Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the USA all report that for 60-80% of boys sampled and

one-third of girls sampled, who sometimes played with aggressive toys at home, with toy weapon play and

violent video games stimulated play “fighting” at school. Watson and Peng (1992) seem to further establish

connections between fantasy violence play and real aggressive behaviours, observing that toy gun play was

one predictor of observed aggression in day care.

In critiquing the studies of Smith-Sutton (1988) and Watson and Peng (1992), Holland (2002, 2003) suggests

that these studies validity is limited due to flaws in methods; as no distinction between “Play fighting” and

“Actual aggressive behaviour” was made and that the actual incidents of anti social behaviour recorded by

those with a pre occupation to play themes around weapons, war and superheroes was not statistically

significant. It could also be argued that there is little surprise in the findings of Dunn and Hudges (2001) that

for children identified as having social, emotional and behavioural needs, the development of social

relationships, understanding of empathy and ability to resolve conflicts proved challenging. Nor is their little

surprise in the finding that their play patterns, compared to a control group of children, revolved more around

fantasy violence play, displayed more anger, conflict and moments of isolation. While challenging the value of

19

0940649

fantasy violence play, the literature of Dunn and Hudges (2001); Smith-Sutton (1988); Watson and Peng (1992)

and Galda (1985) all identify how for children, the sharing of the enactment and development of fantasy

stories with a supporting adult provides a context through which complex messages about friendships, feelings

and empathy can be experienced and explored in a near formal way. This is a view further shared by Smith

(1988); Paley(1988); Jarvis (2007); Bruce (2006); Bettelheim (1987); Erikson (1950) and Logue (2008). In

reviewing this range of literature an observation can be made. The play choices of children identified as

vulnerable or, “Hard to manage” and most in need of a display of trust and support from their adult

practitioners, is often met with a zero tolerance of such play. The literature of Rich (2003) further poses the

question as to why we adopt a zero tolerance towards engaging in fantasy violence play if for those children

who most need to develop their understanding of others thoughts, empathy and the language skills relating to

conflict resolution, fantasy violence themed play is a significant preoccupation.

2.7 A zero tolerance of war, weapon and fantasy violence play.

A zero tolerance to war, weapon and fantasy violence play exists in the setting of this study. The research of

Holland (2002; 2003) discusses how such a zero tolerance approach to war; weapon and superhero play has

become a shared policy in many early years’ settings. In accounting for this approach, Holland (2002; 2003)

argues that the demographic of the early year’s workforce is dominated by female practitioners who draw

their responses to war; weapon and superhero play directly from their own personal memories of the feminist

movements of the 1980’s. Holland (2002;2003) discusses how many of the practitioners interviewed in her

studies, shared the ideology of the campaigns, in that by taking fantasy violence away from the child and

replacing it with nurture and peaceful play, young boys will be socialized away from models of violence.

Holland (2002; 2003) further identifies how changes to practices enforced by external agencies and the lack of

time practitioners spend reflecting upon the effectiveness of their practices are issues which also account for

this zero tolerance approach.

Through her writing, Holland (2002; 2003) consistently states that there is no “Meta Narrative”, a modernist

concept of objective, rational truth to why many schools have adopted a zero tolerance approach. There exists

no policy or guidance from the Government on the need for zero tolerance approaches to certain play choices.

With this in mind, this review will now “Funnel” (Wellington et.al, 2005, and Ridley, 2008) its discussion

20

0940649

towards literature that advocates a need for practitioners to challenge this self adopted zero tolerance

approach towards choices of play that for some children are a constant pre occupation.

2.8 A review of literature advocating the value of accepting and engaging in children’s fantasy violence play.

The DCSF (2007) publication, “Confident, capable and creative: supporting boys’ achievements” (a piece of

non statutory guidance for practitioners working within the early year’s foundation stage) highlighted the

effective practice developed by two schools within the London Boroughs of Islington and Camden who both

sort to embrace the boys fascination with superhero play and incorporated these play choices into the

experiences they provided. It discusses how the practitioners in these two nurseries involved themselves as

much as they could in the boys’ superhero play and fantasy violence socio dramatic play and how in doing so,

they developed an opportunity to sustain the children’s imaginative thought processes. The report further

highlighted how by accepting these play choices, the staff became aware of a positive impact upon both the

emotional well being and self esteem of ‘the boys’ in both settings. Ministers connected with its publication,

notably Beverly Hughes, received some fierce criticisms from nursery practitioners with strong views against

letting ‘the boys’ engage in play choices associated with make believe violence. The causes of this criticism

seem to stem from the highlighting in one chapter of a need for schools to ensure that:

1. Whole staff teams agree on a similar approach to valuing, respecting and working with boys in their play choices.

2. Practitioners need to be aware of our own responses to boys when their play seems to be about fighting and power

3. Schools need to begin implementing changes which some staff may find contentious so that boys have access to a

balanced range of experiences.”

(DCSF, 2007, pg 18)

This DFE (2007) publication advocated a need for teachers and practitioners to review their approaches as to

how they respond towards challenging play choices. The literature of Patten (2000) discusses the many

contestable views connected to children engaging in fantasy violence play and in doing so Patten (2000)

observes how, “Just saying no leads to parents and teachers developing feelings of frustration, guilt, and

inadequacy. A just say no policy seems fruitless because children are exposed to popular media culture nearly

everywhere.” (Patten, 2000)

21

0940649

‘Fantasy violence’ play should not be categorised in such a negative way, as the actual play the children

engage in is firstly not violent and secondly it is a genre of socio dramatic play (Pellegrini and Smith, 1988).This

growing consensus can be viewed in the literature of Grossman (2008); Katch (2002); Thompson (2000); Paley

(1988); Rich (2003); Singer(1990) and Power’s (2000) who observes,

“Professionals need to be careful not to equate play-fighting with serious fighting, and not to label a child as ‘aggressive’

simply because he or she prefers a particular kind of play. Given that many children find interest and enjoyment in active,

loco motor play, children should be given numerous opportunities for this type of play as well. Such activities are likely to

contribute to motor development, overall physical fitness, and possibly cognitive development”. (Powers, 2000, pg. 395)

‘Fantasy violence or Rough and Tumble play’ is non-violent, in the fact that such play seems to only occur

between friends with the actual moments of physical contact controlled by the children themselves, different

in definition to moments of real aggression (Jarvis, 2010). The distinctions Jarvis (2010); Grossman (2008);

Katch (2002); Thompson (2000); Paley (1988); Rich (2003); Singer (1990) and Power (2000) make between play

and actual aggression are fundamental definitions to use in challenging adult perceptions related to the value

of fantasy violence play. On this point of adult perception towards children’s preoccupations with fantasy

violence play, Katch (2002) observes:

"It is a very strange thing that is happening in our society, The violence in the media is more and more explicit, and at the

same time culture is coming down harder and harder on little boys' own fantasies, which are actually much less violent than

what is in the media." Katch (2002)

Thompson (2000) rejects even this characterization of such play, stating, "There is no such thing as violent

play. Violence and aggression are intended to hurt somebody. Play is not intended to hurt somebody. Play,

rougher in its themes and rougher physically, is a feature of boyhood in every society on Earth." (Thompson,

2000) Goldstein (2008) citied by Singer(1990) in Holland (2002) further argues:

“While I certainly do not wish to propose that providing millions of children with toy soldier sets would alleviate real

violence in the world and generate pacifism, I do want to emphasize that such toys can be conducive to generating

imaginative play without provoking overtly violent behaviour. I am much more concerned about the millions of children who

have no toys.” (Goldstein, 2008, citied by Singer, 1990, in Holland, 2002, pg 5.)

22

0940649

Children’s engagement in fantasy violence play provides them the opportunity to externalize a relationship

between playing and the repositioning of self image. These are concepts also written about by Logue (2008)

and Jones (2002) whose literature discusses the concern that a zero tolerance towards fantasy violence play

prevents children, most notably boys, from rehearsing and imaging themselves conquering their fears. At the

University of Maine, Logue (2008) launched a program in which children’s learning activities incorporated the

involvement of imaginary "bad guys."Logue (2008) observed how, "Day after day, the bad guys appeared. We

redirected the play and it would always temporarily subside, but soon to reappear having been transformed

into a new theme or new character names," After conversations and a letter-writing exercise intended to

permanently banish these fictitious bad guys, the teachers involved in Logue’s (2008) study reconsidered their

perspectives:

“Banishing the bad guys diminished the running and noise level but, also, the pretend play and energy within the classroom.

No more extravagant stories were being told and the group of boys who so passionately desired the bad guys were having

more difficulty sustaining long periods of play," (Logue, 2008)

The “bad guys” serve a purpose for the children, Logue (2008) said:"They are also working on impulse control,

they are trying really hard to be good, but it's really hard to be good," she said. "These bad guys give them a

way to externalize that part of them that they are trying to conquer." While writing from a personal platform

with the intention of providing the reader with an entertaining and thought provoking read, Jones’s (2002)

“Killing Monsters” provided the key theoretical ideas that led to the creation of this thesis. Jones (2002)

passionately states a position that young children need to experience fantasy violence play and superhero role

play to help develop their self agency, their ability to cope with fears and anxieties, their ability to experience

feeling strong and to explore the concept of personal power. This idea that fantasy violence can support a

young person in taking control of their anxieties, can also be reviewed in the literature of Compton-Lilly (2006);

Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence (1973) in Compton-Lilly (2006);Paley (1988); Rich (2003); Thompson (2000);

Logue (2008); and Katch (2002). This range of research literature shares the view stated by Holland (2002) that

a, “Zero tolerance to this kind of play inhibits us from supporting the children’s development of their

imaginative and negotiating skills which may mediate the real risk factors present in our children’s lives.”

(Holland, 2002. Pg.4)

2.9 “Stressful Surveillance” and the, “Invisible Playground” (Jarvis, 2007).

23

0940649

The literature of, amongst others, Holland (2002; 2003) Jarvis (2007; 2010) Blurton-Jones (1967); Jarvis (2007;

2010) and Howard (2010) discuss how a zero tolerance to certain children’s play choices denies them the right

to engage in their most valued forms of play within complex, informal and social environments and as a result,

their play become invisible to the adult performing, “Stressful surveillance” (Jarvis, 2007).The complex social

and symbolic developments which occur in the socio dramatic quality of fantasy violence play are often not

seen by those adults surveying the play, these very real learning experiences just became part of what Jarvis

(2007) terms “The Invisible Playground.”

In an ethnographical piece of research, Jarvis (2007) observed how while the children’s play was socially and

symbolically complex and to the children highly valuable, the interview data collected indicated that owing to

principally a very low adult: child ratio in playground supervision the focus of the adults was strongly directed

towards the negative aspects of this play, a view shared by Bishop and Curtis (2001); Blurton-Jones (1967);

Bruner (1996) and Bronfenbrenner (1994). Jarvis (2007) observed how when creating their play, ‘the boys’

quickly agreed on some general rules, guided and organised the play, divided up the space into different

“Territories” between age cohorts, generating amongst themselves a firm, implicitly agreed sense of where

their play began and others ended. Jarvis (2007) also notably observed how the older boys became “Mentors”

to the younger boys; how they clearly showed care and concern towards each other in order not to exclude

others from the play.

These observations discussed by Jarvis (2007) can be linked to Vygotsky’s (1978) theories on the importance of

providing an environment that allows for socially constructed learning. The most notable comparisons

between Jarvis’s (2007) observations and Vygotsky’s (1978) theories relate to two key “Vygotskian” principles:

1) The “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD). The distance between a child’s ability to perform a task under the guidance

of peer collaboration and the child’s ability to solve problem’s independently.

2) The concept of the, “More Knowledgeable Other” (MKO). Any other person who has a better understanding or a higher

ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task, process, or concept. The MKO is normally thought of as being

a teacher, coach, or older adult, but the MKO could also be peers, siblings or even a younger child.

(Maddux, Johnson, and Willis, 1997)

24

0940649

It analysing such comparisons, it was noted in Jarvis’s (2007) study that where adults intervened, they tended

to show misunderstanding of the day to day conventions of the games, and as a result completely disrupted

the rule systems established by the children, with Jarvis (2007) observing how,

“It therefore appeared that the intervention of the older boys was far more in tune with the playground culture as it was

experienced by the child participants of these observations than this adult intervention, which triggered a cascade of events

that conspired to curtail the play activity altogether.”( Jarvis, 2007, pg. 181)

Adults interviewed in Jarvis’s (2007) study explained how their focus was to perform what they termed,

“Stressful Surveillance”. Bishop and Curtis, (2001) discuss how the emotional pressure experienced by

supervising adults within such environments as the school playground, renders most of the positives of this

form of play as invisible. “Many teachers find it hard to accept evidence of positive playground based play,

many having observed nothing but bad behaviour.” (Bishop and Curtis, 2001, pg 182). Practitioners in Jarvis’s

(2007) study shared an agreed view that they had few insights into what the children actually did when they

engaged in their play, the value of the children’s play became buried under the continual mediation of

complaints and the providing of first aid to those who had fallen on the concrete.

The literature of Bishop and Curtis (2001); Jarvis (2007); Howard (2010); Palaiologou (2010) and

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological theory of child development, challenges schools practitioners to move

away from a perception of their role as surveyor of dangerous spaces and instead develop a shared

understanding as to why socially complex learning environments, in which the child has autonomy over their

play choices, are so vital to children’s development.

2.10 Conclusion.

This review of literature has identified how within early years practice, children need opportunities to make

real, meaningful decisions (Morrison, 1997). How children need to be allowed to determine how they play,

have the opportunities to make their own choices and feel powerful (Jones, 2002). Autonomy over play

25

0940649

reduces children’s hostility towards adults that restrict freedom of choice (Edwards 1993, Gordon and Browne,

1996) and prevents children from moving their play into invisible spaces (Jarvis 2007) and further allows the

child to develop a sense of self esteem. The literature of Wolstenholme, et al (2010); DCSF (2007);Erikson

(1950); Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Bettelheim (1987) identifies where children have unlimited time in which

to develop their autonomous play, they often demonstrate higher levels of creativity, more complex play and

sustain their engagement for longer periods of time with practitioners who promote their interests.

While this review of literature discussed writing that contests the value of fantasy violence play, it identified

how children’s engagement in fantasy violence play provides them the opportunity to externalize a

relationship between playing and the repositioning of self image. How fantasy violence play and superhero

role play helps develop children’s self agency, their ability to cope with fears, anxieties and their ability to

experience the concept of personal power. This review further discussed how the act of engaging in fantasy

violence play for some children is almost beyond a conscious choice, it is as Jarvis (2010) and Grossman (2008)

identify part of their “Bio Cultural” roots, how often such fantasy violence play is engaged in to satisfy a need

to imitate the actions of “child culture” figures and superheroes, to act out an instinct or to rehearse self

protection and conquer fear.

There exist many contestable views over the socio dramatic values of fantasy violence play, which often

become invisible to those conducting “Stressful surveillance.” (Jarvis, 2007). Paley (2004) herself declares, she

has not yet ‘learned to love Darth Vader’. It is therefore the intention of this ethnographic study to use the

literature reviewed in this chapter to structure a critical analysis of observations made in relation to how the

children in this reception cohort of a sub urban London school, use fantasy violence play to support their

development and learning.

The Literature reviewed in this chapter identifies a need for practitioners to listen to the children’s language of

play and most significantly, engage in it. Literature from The DCSF (2007); Formberg (1995) and Maxim (1997)

illustrates how practitioners responding to autonomously created fantasy violence play choices allows the

adult practitioner access to the children’s, ‘language of the play’ (Jarvis 2010). This view is shared by Paley

(1988) who comments,

26

0940649

“I record their fantasy play because it is the main repository for secret messages, the intuitive language with which children

express their imaginary and logic, their pleasure and curiosity, their ominous feelings and fears.” (Paley, 1988, pg7)

However, the literature of Howard (2010); Johnson (1994); McMullen and Alat (2002); Cohen (2006); Cheng

and Stimpson, (2004) and Mcinnes, et al (2009) all discuss a range of complex barriers that prevent such adult

engagement in children’s play. This ethnography will therefore also look to observe the barriers that stop the

adult practitioners working in this early year’s team from engaging with the children in their autonomously

selected play choices.

This ethnography will adopt a socialist constructivist view with the data collected being generated through

both observation and dialogue as defined by Freire (1972). This study will be constructed within and by the

very community in which this play exists, in a similar way to the research methodologies and methods of Jarvis

(2007), Blurton-Jones (1967) Paley (1998) and Willis (1978).

2.11 Research questions.

1. How do the children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school use fantasy violence in their

play?

2. What are the barriers that stop the adult practitioners working in this early year’s team from engaging

with the children in their autonomously selected play choices?

Chapter Three.

3. Research Methodology

27

0940649

3.1 A justification for adopting an ethnographic approach with a social constructivist worldview.

Educational research which sets out to look at the issues raised in this thesis can be approached through a

range of methodologies, epistemological views and data collection methods. Nevertheless, this study will be

an ethnography, constructed around a coherent theoretical and analytical framework relating to the themes

identified in the literature reviewed in chapter two.

This study will adopt a philosophical view, a “Social constructivist worldview” (Creswell, 2009, pg.8). There are

a range of other philosophical views, such as the Post Positivist view, however, this studies philosophy will not

search for absolute truths or view knowledge as “Conjectural”, two key features of Post Positivist views

identified by Phillips and Burbles (2000). It is not the intention of this ethnography to analyse data with a Post

Positivist view of reducing it into small, discrete and testable variables. The research questions have not been

designed to prove or compromise a hypothesis. Unlike Post positive philosophical views, described by Phillips

and Burbles (2000) and Creswell (2009) it is the intention of this study to construct a basic generation of

meaning arising from this study’s community. This qualitative process will be largely inductive, attempting to

make meaning from the data collected in the ethnographic field.

The construction of this study has been influenced by ethnographers such as Willis (1978); Whyte (1943; 1981)

and Hey (1997). The researcher will be positioned in the process itself, acknowledging the fact that

interpretation comes from personal, cultural and historical experiences, further justifying the adoption of a

Social Constructivist philosophical view as identified by Crotty (1998); Phillips and Burbles(2000) and Creswell

(2009).

3.2 A discussion on the researchers “Positionality” (Cresswell, 2009).

It is the position of the researcher that effective learning demands that an essentially “symbiotic relationship”

(Pascal and Bertram, 1997; in Carr, 2002) be developed between the child and adult. It is acknowledged that

other positions exist. Some writers (See: Vygotsky, 1978; Compton-Lilly, C, 2006; Guha, 1988 and

Csikszentmihalya, 1996) argue that the purpose of the early year’s teacher and practitioner is to ensure that

adults involve children in using their own personal knowledge as the foundation for their construction of new

learning. Blachford (2004) in Carr (2002) identifies that an exclusive focus of attention on adult engagement

distracts attention from the influence of peers who may be encouraged to scaffold each other’s learning.

28

0940649

“Behaviourist” views attributed to Skinner (1904-1990) and Watson (1878-1958), outline how “Educators have

to teach. They have to transform transfers of information into a 'real act of knowing' (Skinner, in Carr, 2002.

Pg.43). While acknowledging other positions, observations of the ethnographic field will be made from the

position of believing that teachers and practitioners need to sensitively, facilitate play while granting

autonomy for the child to make their own judgments and express their own ideas.

3.3 Methods.

This ethnography will study how children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school, use fantasy

violence in their play. After reviewing the literature of Wilson (2008) and Woods (2008) the decision was taken

that this study could not, ethically, be designed as a piece of action research. The development of this study as

a narrative enquiry was also considered. The literature of Gray (1998) in Bell (2005) outlines how the narrative

enquiry approach allows the researcher the opportunity to collect “Stories” which form part of the research

analysis. These ‘stories’ are made into interpretations, from which analysis is made with the researchers

writing moving these stories into a, “Meaning making process” (Gray, 1998 cited in Bell 2005, p.27).

Gudmunsdottir (1996) also views the narrative enquiry approach as a way of creating a, “Meaning making

process most useful to the researcher when exerts of stories are used when reflecting on a research theme.”

(Gudmunsdottir, 1996, pg. 295) While acknowledging the benefits of developing a narrative enquiry, it is not

the intention of this study to create a collection of analysed children’s stories. Personal experience of already

using this method, in this study’s school, identified how the data created from narrative enquiry processes

failed to significantly impact upon the strategical thinking of the school’s senior leadership team. This view is

reflected in the literature of Usher (1992) who identifies how senior educators can often think of story telling

as “Unserious, or fictional, whereas, our image and response to “research” is that it is about truth and

therefore more serious.” (Usher, 1992, in Bell, 2005. pg27)

It is this study’s intention to use ethnographic methods to position the researcher within the natural

environments of the children. Paley (1984) observes how from such a position, the observer can share in the

secret messages that are seldom revealed in conversation,

29

0940649

“When I care more about what the children say and think than my own conventionality, those are the times I

sense the beat and hear the unspoken lines.” (Paley, 1988, pg6) Ethnography will allow for the opportunity to

naturally observe how the children use fantasy violence, the opportunity to create collections of

interpretations and engage in a, “meaning making process” (Gudmunsdottir, 1996, pg. 295) through sensitive

observation without being confided to just analysing stories the children have chosen to share. Ethnography

will allow the researcher the opportunity to make sense of spoken and, “unspoken lines” (Paley, 1988, pg6).

3.4 Understanding ethnography and the ethnographic style of approach.

A review of ethnographic literature was undertaken to extend the researchers knowledge of its methodology

and methods. Ethnography literally means a description of peoples and cultures. Its origins as a research

strategy can be seen in the literature of early social anthropologists, such as Malivowski (1922) and Mead

(1943). Ethnographic principles match the epistemological perspective of the researcher, the studies of Whyte

(1943; 1981) illustrated how ethnography requires the researcher to spend considerable time in “The Field”

sharing in the lives and cultures of those being studied. Ethnography requires the researcher to share in the

experiences of those being observed, to construct an analysis of how the members of the group being studied

understand the world around them and how they attach meaning to the realities they perceive. This is a view

shared by Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) and LeCompte and Schensul (1999). Ethnography is a non

experimental research approach that uses both qualitative method data collection methods which are,

“Designed for discovery” (LeCompte and Schensul, 1999, pg. 2). Ethnographic principles match the

epistemological perspective of this study as they allow the researcher a way of, “Studying people in naturally

occurring settings by methods of data collection which captures their ordinary activities, the collection of data

in a natural setting.” (Brewer, 2000, pg.6) Ethnography is generally referred to as an holistic approach

(Hammersley and Atkinson,1983), which “Stresses processes, relationships, connections and interdependency

among the component parts of the field” (Dencombe, 2007, pg 62).

While experimental and quasi experimental studies are often viewed as, “The gold standard for examining

program impact” (LeCompte and Schensul ,1999) the methods of such studies do not suit the design of this

social research project. There are many critical issues facing education and educators that raise other types of

questions than those simply related to the proving of an interventions impact, which without “The ability, or

30

0940649

right, to control probable confounding variables or randomly assign to condition, can never establish true

causation.” (LeCompte and Schensul ,1999). It is also the researchers view that, “The rigor represented in

ethnographic research methods produces scientifically valid and reliable data.” (Kaestle, et al . 1991 ). This

study adopts the view that by employing non experimental methods complimented with careful synthesis; a

shared understanding of how children use fantasy violence play to support their learning can be formed.

3.5 Data Collection Methods.

3.5.1 The methodology behind the construction of this study’s sample.

The epistemological perspective of the researcher influences the way in which the sample being observed is

created, this is the view of Cox and West (1986); Isaac (1990) and Cohen, Manion, and Morrison(2000).

Amongst the range of epistemological perspectives, Post Positivist perspectives would advocate probability

sampling as most useful in creating a studies hypothesis and generalability, (Cox and West, 1986). However,

working from a social constructivist view, in creating the sample for this study it’s more appropriate to adopt a

non- probability approach, also known as, ‘Purposive sampling’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2000). To

reduce any potential bias towards focusing observations on a selected group of children within this sample,

this study has adopted a, ‘Stratified and Clustered’ (Isaac, 1990) approach to identifying its sample. This

approach has supported the identification of an, ‘Accessible population.’ (Morrison, 2000) In this, ‘Stratified

and Clustered’ (Isaac, 1990) approach to sampling, the researcher focuses their observations on a group of

children that represent a cross section of the characteristics and behaviours displayed by the population within

a specific geographic space. This method is therefore best suited for the observation of how children in this

reception cohort use fantasy violence to support their development within the play spaces provided by the

schools environment.

3.5.2 Adopting a participatory role within the process of data collection.

The acknowledgment that the researcher, in adopting a social constructivist world view, intends to place

themselves within the ethnography process is important. Lankser and Knobel (2004) observe that the teacher

31

0940649

engaged in collection methods associated with observed forms of qualitative data, needs to decide upon their

role as a participant within the study, whether they are a non participant or a full participant:

“The non participating researcher removes themselves as much as possible from the context in which they wish to observe

the children, an approach associated with clinical research or structured observation schedules. The full participant role

engages researcher directly and completely within the context of the enquiry and its activities.” (Lankser and Knobel, 2004,

p.225)

It is the researcher’s intention to engage within the children’s play, Lankser and Knobel (2004) observe that

this form of full participation gives the teacher as a researcher the advantage:

“Since, by default, they are full participants in the everyday life and practices of their own classrooms. They can rightly

claim an insider’s perspective on what takes place. This lends weight to their data interpretations.”(Lankser and Knobel,

2004, p.225)

In this ethnography, the researcher will adopt the role of a full participant due the advantage they have in

already being engaged in the everyday lives of the children that form this study’s sample.

3.6 Observation Methods.

This ethnography will collect primarily observed data. The literature of Lankser and Knobel (2004) identifies

the appropriateness of this method, “Ethnographic approaches make much use of observation data to

construct richly descriptive and interpreted accounts of events, practices or cultures over time.” (Lankser and

Knobel, 2004, pg219). Observation methods can be divided into two categories, structured or unstructured

observation schedules. Structured sessions will not be used, as “Direct Systematic observations”(Lankser and

Knobel, 2004) are mostly used in quantitative research and are often used in making direct comparisons

between data sets constructed from different observed groups. The unstructured approach to observation

provides a system that relates more closely to this study’s methods. Lankser and Knobel’s (2004) definition of

this approach illustrates the appropriateness of using an unstructured schedule within this ethnography:

“It is the idea of going not a context and trying as much as possible to see, observing a context with no specific or tightly

defined data collection intention in mind, to see what is happening. Those researchers using this approach need to conduct

32

0940649

their observations over a period of time so that enough evidence can be collected and analyzed to ensure the validity of the

patterns being described by the researcher.” Lankser and Knobel (2004, p.222)

To avoid the analysis of observed data potentially becoming, “An array of ‘pictures’ which coexist, but which

tend to remain separate, isolated stories” (Denscombe, 2005, pg. 73) a selective then focused approach to

observation will be adopted once patterns of interest have been identified. Lankser and Knobel (2004) support

this consideration identifying how researchers should, “ Begin making focused observations once they start to

reflect on and analyze observation data they have collected already and patterns or loci of interest begin to

emerge.” (Lankser and Knobel, 2004, p.220)

3.7 Ethics

3.7.1 Ethical challenges in participant observation.

Different research paradigms call for different ethical considerations, this is a view shared by Kompf (1993);

Lincoln (1990) and Wax (1979) in Bresler (1996). “The underlying assumptions of the qualitative paradigm

necessitate different types of ethical considerations from the ones used in the positivist paradigm.” (Bresler,

1996). There is a Fundamental assumption of the ethnographic paradigm that truth and reality are

perspectival, contextual, and multiple (Bresler, 1996). However, the “Vantage Point” (Leadbetter, 2010), of the

researcher affects this very process, it effects this ethnographic paradigm. These underlying assumptions,

identified by Bresler (1996); Denscombe (2007); Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) and Hammersley (1990)

include the following:

1. Complexity. Teaching and classroom life are highly complex phenomena and cannot be reduced to simple variables.

2. Contextuality. As reality is shaped by many factors, the understanding of a setting or an issue always involves the

understanding of relevant contexts.

3. Social reality is constructed culturally and individually, it is by definition, multiple.

4. Subjectivity. As objectivity is impossible, subjectivity should be acknowledged, examined, and negotiated rather than

suppressed. Researchers are always situated within social reality and carry with them their subjectivities and values.

33

0940649

5 . Interpretation and meaning. Causal explanation, control, and prediction are impossible. Because interpretations are

constructed and multiple, the same activity may be interpreted in different ways by the different participants.

(Bresler,1996. pg. 133-14)

In designing an ethical study that takes account of Bresler (1996); Denscombe (2007); Hammersley and

Atkinson (1983) and Hammersley’s(1990) identification of the underlying assumptions of “the qualitative

paradigm” the literature of Miles and Huberman (1994); Bresler (1996); Denscombe (2007); Knobel (2004);

Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) and Hammersley (1990) identifies the ethical issues a researcher must

consider. These identified issues will now be used as sub headings to structure further discussion.

3.7.2 Informed Consent.

The focus of this study has been communicated to all participants. In considering the ethical issues associated

with being a full participant, the researcher will not enter into the enquiry via, “anonymous immersion”

(Lankser and Knobel, 2004) being involved in the project without explaining to the children why. The children

will be told about the researchers motives for becoming involved in their play and what the study hopes to

achieve.

3.7.3 Honesty, trust, and a truthful presentation of data.

There is acknowledgement that ethnographic research is a construction.

“It is not a direct reproduction, a literal photograph of the situation. It is rather a crafted construction which employs

writing skill and inevitably owes something to the ethnographers own experiences.” (Dencombe, 2007, pg 62)

A fundamental principle of this study is that its conduct relates directly with Freire’s (1972) insistence that

“dialogue” involves respect; it should not involve one person acting on another, but rather people working

with each other. By using this guiding principle, any personal bias over the interpretation of what the

researcher is observing will be countered by this study’s intention to respectfully record the moments of

dialogue that occur between the researcher, other adults and children in this study’s ethnographic field.

3.7.4 Intrusion.

34

0940649

In, “Street Corner Society”, Whyte (1955) stresses the importance of “Relationship quality” building a positive

relationship with those you want to engage with in your ethnographic study. Whyte (1995) documents the

importance of this relationship to ensure “normal activity” continues as the researcher enters the field. From

early in September 2011, visits have been routinely made, by the researcher, to this study’s reception class.

These visits have included observation and engagement in the children’s play and discussions with

practitioners about the importance of allowing children to develop their autonomous play. The process of

developing “Relationship quality” (Whyte, 1955) has already been established, limiting the extent to which the

appearance of the researcher in the classroom or learning garden would in its very nature mean that the

natural setting and activity of the children and practitioners being observed would be altered.

This study will not adopt a “Pragmatic philosophy” (Cresswell, 2009) it will not be used to develop an intrusive

“fixing” of the situation or to enforce a change to practice which would see practitioners more engaged in the

children’s challenging play choices.

3.7.5 Advocacy

As part of the growing trend towards research on and with children in Sociology and Anthropology, the

literature of Christensen and James (2002); James, Jenks, and Prout (2004); Qvortrup (1994); Ferreira (2004);

Goodman (1967:1972); Nespor (1997) and Waldorff and Waldorff (2008) calls for ‘social conscience,’ the

inclusion of children’s narratives within research design. There is a consensus in this literature that

ethnographic researchers should actively seek to include children's viewpoints in their ethnographical

research, especially focusing on how the children in such research link their perceptions and interpretations

arising from their social world to the way in which they and others learn:

“What is clear from the academic study of children is that children have been virtually excluded as active participants in the

research process; treated rather as ‘objects of study’. When children are permitted in those rare cases to become active

participants telling their own story in their own way, the research experience is often personally moving and meaningful

and the data provided rich and complex.” (Grover, 2004, pg. 93.)

It is the view of Thorne (1993) that to adopt this stance means breaking with an array of common adult

assumptions:

35

0940649

“That children's daily actions are mostly trivial, worthy of notice only when they seem cute or irritating; that children need

to be actively managed or controlled; that children are relatively passive recipients of adult socialisation.” (Thorne, 1993, in

Kamil, Langer, & Shanahan, 1985)

The researcher has a relationship with the children that, as observed by the United Nations Convention on The

Rights of The Child, Article 12, would allow the children who are able to express their views the opportunity to

do so freely. The relationship established with this group further serves to protect what Bell (2005), identifies

as “The vulnerability of the Interviewer”, a concern also observed in the 2004 revision of BERA Guidelines,

relating the interviewees ability to effectively, “tell their story”, their ability to articulate and convey their

understanding or viewpoint, their ability or comfort in being completely honest in the responses they give and

importantly their ability to make the decision to no longer be involved in the study.

The incorporation of ‘social conscience’ by including the voice of the children in the data analysis is

fundamental to the adoption of the social constructivist view taken in this project. The data analysis process

needs to recognise the children as:

“Social players with the necessary capacity to interpret their social world. If this is achieved a researchers interpretations of

their daily life becomes denser, more complete and richer in meaning” (James, 1999, in LeCompte & Schensul, 1999)

However, it is important that this study does not develop a sense of “Paternalism” (Lincon and Williams, 1988)

the over emphasizing of the voice of the children against the voice of the adults. It is ethnography, not

narrative enquiry. It will be imperative that the analysed data is not invalidated in the eyes of colleagues who

become engaged in discussions of “Whose side are you on?” This concern is identified by Becker (1967). To

achieve ‘social conscience’ without fear of “Pateralism” (Lincon and Williams, 1988), the design of the analysis

process has been influenced by the literature of Clifford (1992). The “ethnographic authority” (Clifford,1992)

of the researcher recording both the children’s and adults perspectives and daily lives, will be used as a way

of legitimising both viewpoints concerning the social and cultural life in which they take part – in this case, that

of the school.

3.7.6 Intervention

In ‘Learning to Labour,’ Willis (1978) describes how while one student, ‘Joey’, was viewed by his teachers as

“unteacherable”, he saw ‘Joey’ as an innovative and competent writer capable of producing writing of a high

quality, quality that was rarely shared with his teachers. In his study Willis (1978) does not challenge ‘Joey’ as

36

0940649

to why he would hide his talent for writing, nor did he challenge Joey to re consider his pre occupation with

leading his “Lads” in their counter-school culture. As an Ethnographer, Willis (1978) chose as his methodology

to be uncompromisingly true to the experiences he observed and not to intervene in the lives of the children

he engaged with. Unlike Willis (1978), in this study a balance must exist between the role of researcher and

teacher. Therefore, any misconceptions adults may have about the children in their care, such as Arif, will be

challenged through discussion and dialogue. It is the researcher’s/teacher’s duty of care to ensure that no child

or adult displays harmful behaviour, experiences exclusion, or remains disengaged from potential learning

experiences.

3.7.7 Privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity.

The literature of Denscombe (2007); Bell (2005); Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) and Hammersley (1990)

brings into question confidentiality concerns over the product of ethnography and its dissemination to

members within and outside the researched setting. This piece of research adheres to the data protection

principles as outlined in The Data Protection Act of 1998. Data will be collected in a fair and lawful manner,

used only for the purposes originally specified and accurately presented. The data will be kept securely and all

participants will remain anonymous. Participant’s names will be changed.

3.8 Data analysis

Within the spectrum of Ethnography research, a debate exists to its purpose. It is not the intention of this

ethnographic study to use “idiographic” or “phenomenological” approaches (Hammersley, 1990) a straight

forward first hand retelling of “one off, stand alone” (Denscombe, 2007) experiences witnessed from the

position of the researcher. In this Ethnography the researcher will interpret the situations being observed from

the perspective of the participants, then support interpretations being made by conducting appropriate

literature searches and engaging in dialogue with others in the field. The researcher will construct written

accounts that attempt to “make the familiar strange” (Gall et al. 2005). By this Gall, et al. (2005) discusses how

the ethnographer examines cultural phenomena, (the children’s use of fantasy violence play) from the

perspective of the outsider, the adult, (to whom it is strange) while trying to comprehend the cultural

37

0940649

phenomena, (the children’s use of fantasy violence play) from the perspective of an insider, the child (to whom

it is familiar). This study will produce what Hammersley (1990) would refer to as,

“Theoretical, analytical, or thick descriptions (whether of societies, small communities, organisations, spatial locations or

social worlds). These descriptions must remain close to the concrete reality of particular events but at the same time reveal

general features of human social life.” (Hammersley, 1990 pg. 598)

The literature of other ethnographer’s, such as Potter (1993) take Hammersley’s (1990) debates further,

placing ethnographic research at the other end of this debated spectrum, into a area of “Nomothetic” (Potter,

1993) observation, how social life is dependant upon a theory. Potter (1993) links Ethnography to a Ground

Theory Approach to qualitative data, a research method attributed to Glaser and Strauss in the 1960’s. Hayes

(2000) defines this process as the “Iterative Process.” (Hayes, 2000, in Bell 2005, pg. 184) A process in which

theoretical insights emerge or are discovered as the research develops, in turn these new insights producing

new theories which are tested, producing more new insights that are again tested, and so on, until you reach

the core where no further theory can be produced or the research has evolved to a point where the last theory

is proven, what Punch (1998) terms “Theoretical saturation.” (Punch, 1998, pg. 167) This ethnographic study

will not look to develop grounded theory for the reasons Miles and Humerman, (1994) observe, “Understanding

comes in layers; the longer we are in the environment, the more layers appear to surface and the choice of when to close

down, when to go for the definitive analysis can be painful…when the constraints of time and budget are relaxed,

saturation can become a vanishing horizon.” (Miles and Humerman, 1994, p.62)

It is identified by Denscombe (2007); Woods (1979); Gueron (1999); Hammersley and Atkinson (1983); Kaestle,

Damon-Moore, Stedman, Tinsley, & Trollinger, (1991) and LeCompte and Schensul (1999) that an ethnographic

middle ground can exist, that “Idiographic” and “Nomothetic” (Hammersley, 1990) approaches are not

mutually exclusive. This ethnography will be located in this middle ground. This ethnography will make

grounded analysis of the observations collected on how the children use fantasy violence in their play. This

analysis which will look to triangulate each interpretive finding through theoretical discussion with other adults

and searches of research literature, but not drive for “Theoretical saturation.” (Punch, 1998, pg. 167)

3.9 Conclusion

38

0940649

It is acknowledged that ethnography presents a range of limiting factors. While advocating the value of

ethnography research, the literature of Denscome (2007) Fetterman (1998), Geertz (1973) and Van Maanen

(1988) identifies that an ethnography’s generability will be limited in the fact that the data observed and

analysed in this study relates only to the community engaged in this study’s field. It is accepted that there is a

limitation in the potential towards generalising the events and analysis from this ethnographic account of the

children’s use of fantasy violence. However, researchers in education (See: Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Bresler

and Stake, 1992; Denzin, 1994; Peshkin, 1988 and Walker, 1980) increasingly have come to value the

personal nature of conducting ethnography within an educational setting.

The purpose of this ethnography is to describe how the children in this reception cohort use fantasy violence

play and to identify the barriers that prevent the adult practitioners in this setting from engaging in this play.

The construction of this ethnography, with the researcher positioned in the ethnographic field, provides the

opportunity for the grounded analysis and interpretation of what’s being observed to be shared with the

adults and children participating in its located community. This ethnography will support the researcher in

creating an understanding of the research questions from the perspective of those being studied, a view

shared by Gall, J.P. et al. (2005); Nurani (2008); Denscombe (2007); Tuckman (1999) and Grey, (1998).

Chapter Four.

39

0940649

4. Data Analysis.

In this chapter, a series of thematically analysed key findings will be presented which relate significantly to this

thesis’s research questions and reviewed literature. This chapter will start by acknowledging the limitations of

the data before discussing the interpretations of findings that have been developed through a grounded

analysis of observed data collected during the ethnography.

4.1 A discussion on the limitations, reliability, validity and generalisability of the data.

This ethnography challenged the researcher to deepen their understanding of methodology and methods as it

presented a tension stemming from what Denscombe (2005) views as, “Twin concerns with naturalism and

reflexivity” (Denscombe, 2007, pg73).

“Ethnographies generally attempt to accommodate an internal contradiction between a realist aspiration to provide

detailed descriptions of events as they naturally exist and, “A “relativist” awareness of the reflective nature of social

knowledge and the inevitable influence of the researcher’s “self on the whole research endeavour.” (Denscombe, 2007, pg

73).

To address this concern, when analytically recording this study’s findings, the adopted writing style combined

personal involvement with objectivity, this is an approach suggested by Woods (2006). Without this, Woods

(2006) argues that the researcher will identify strongly with the members of the group and support their

values instead of studying them, potentially, as Denscombe (2007) warns, providing the reader with only

detailed descriptive accounts of events at the expense of developing an analytic insight.

This ethnography has the constraint in that the data collected relates only to the direct period of observation,

it is difficult to replicate this research because the events occurring in this natural setting cannot be

reproduced, and therefore its typicality could be questioned. This ethnography requires the data to be

interpreted in the context of the situation in which in was observed. The findings cannot be used to generalize

the findings to other contexts. The findings must be considered in reference to its ‘Contextualisation’

(Wiersma, 1986). This view is shared by Denscombe (2007), Bell (2005) and Nurani (2008).

40

0940649

To limit ‘Reflexivity’ (Denscombe, 2007) the potential of the writing becoming influenced by bias or

predisposition, this chapter was written using low – inference descriptors, (Creswell, 2009) an approach to

analytical writing that remains close to the participant’s accounts and researcher’s field notes. To promote the

validity of this qualitative research, an attempt was also made to triangulate each finding either through

supportive data or literature theory (Denscombe, 2007).

4.2 A reminder of the research questions underpinning the analysis of data collected in this ethnography.

Research questions:

1. How do the children in our reception cohort use fantasy violence in their play and learning?

2. What are the barriers that stop the adult practitioners working in this early year’s team from engaging with the

children in their autonomously selected play choices?

4.3 A discussion of the ethnography’s main findings in relation to the research questions.

4.3.1 The children used fantasy violence play to support their skills in the rehearsal and creation of

innovative narratives, significantly impacting on their attainment in Communication, language and Literacy.

This finding challenges the literature of Dunn and Hughes (2001), Smith-Sutton (1988), Galda. L and A. D.

Pellegrini (1985), Watson and Peng (1992) and Carlsson-Paige and Levin (1990) This literature argues that

children who include fantasy violence themes in their play, experience and engage in fewer pretenses, play

less and therefore their use of language is modestly lower than children who did not include such themes in

their play. This literature also shares the view that for children with a pre occupation for fantasy violence

themed play, their play displays a lack of sophisticated language, creativity and imagination because the

content of children’s play originates from TV or other media cultures. The observed data collected in this

ethnography illustrated how the play narratives created by the children in this cohort when engaging in

fantasy violence themed play, was original, sophisticated in its use of language and creative, this is just one

specific example:

41

0940649

“11/04/2012

The Octopus Narrative (Part of a story in which an octopus protects other sea creatures by fighting evil creatures, but the

octopus is badly injured).

Emmy, Arif, Ali and Aiden (aged 5) explained to me how they were building caves and pools for the octopus and dolphins.

They explained how the octopus is “incredibly” old and lives in a cave, guarded by the dolphins. How he keeps the dolphins

alive with his magic, but needs to sleep in a nest to rest… …in the cave.

The whole time we were outside it was raining quite hard and the drain pipes and water barrels began to overflow. Aiden

disappeared from the group for a while, taking his play over the other end of the garden, Emmy ran over to ask him what he

was doing. He explained that the octopus had a hole in his stomach, there was an actual hole in the toy, and that he needed

to fill this hole with water to keep the octopus and the dolphins alive. Emmy quickly ran back to the cave and pools they had

built from trays and steps, she explained to the others what had happened and they all decided to build a better nest so the

injured octopus could rest while they filled the pools and caves with water from the over flowing pipes.

Aiden: “We must make pools and lagoons so the dragon sharks and dolphins can get water and oxygen and stay alive”

Maliki: “We need one of those caves with water underneath… …we need to make lagoons and sea pools. …come on let’s

build it.”

Joshua: “The Octopus needs the best nest to rest and help the others.”

(Research Journal, pg.40-43)

The discussion that the engagement in socio dramatic, fantasy violence themed play supported these

children’s language development can be further validated by triangulating the observed data recorded in this

ethnography with research literature and data relating to the attainment in Communication, Language and

Literacy of the children observed in this study. Miller and Almon (2009) and Pellegrini and Smith (1988)

observe that children engaged in socio-dramatic play develop greater language skills than non players, better

social skills, more empathy, more imagination and more of the subtle capacity to know what others mean.

That these “players” show more higher levels of thinking. Children in this study who engaged in fantasy

violence themed socio dramatic play, although all coming from minority ethnic backgrounds and being new to

English or bilingual, all attained a Foundation Stage Profile Points score for “Language for Communication” and

“Language for Thinking” that was significantly higher, 12%, than the Local Borough and British national

42

0940649

averages. This data was collated from our end of year assessment procedures which compares the children’s

Foundation Stage Profile data to Local Borough and National bench marks.

4.3.2 When engaging in fantasy violence play, the children in this observed reception cohort displayed an

understanding of the empathy towards the thoughts and feelings of others, the ability to resolve conflict and

to show care and concern for each other.

This finding further challenges the Literature of Dunn and Hughes (2001), Smith-Sutton (1988), Watson and

Peng (1992) and Carlsson-Paige and Levin (1990). This literature discusses how children engaging in fantasy

violence play find it difficult to display an understanding of empathy towards the feelings and thoughts of

others. The Literature also makes a connection between allowing children to engage in pretend fantasy

violence and an increase in real, “Aggressive” behaviour. Over the eleven month period of this ethnography,

only one incidence of actual “fighting” between the children engaging in fantasy violence play was recorded in

the schools playtime, lunch time or outdoor area incidence books. This observation is supported by the

research of Schafer and Smith (1996) which observed a less than 1% occurrence of actual moments of real

aggression in the fantasy violence play of children across a range of primary schools in the UK. It also needs to

be discussed that the actual extent to which this incident involved real “aggressive behaviour” is also

questionable, as this discussion with the children involved shows:

16/07/2012, a moment of real aggression?

Researcher: Why are you four sat here? (Outside the Headteachers office)

Arif: (Visually upset) I kicked Ali and he kicked Dillian and Aidan.

Ali: (crying) But…I was being a Power Ranger…I didn’t mean to, I was pretending and I kicked Arif so he kicked me back and

then I kicked them and they kicked me”

Aidan: We didn’t really kick each other, not hard for real…we were playing but she saw us and really told us off.”

Researcher: “Did any of you hurt each other?”

Children: “No”

Researcher: “Why are you so upset?”

43

0940649

Dillian: “Coz we were only pretending”

Aidan: “I don’t want to get told off”

Arif: “We were just playing our game.”

(Research Journal, pg.63-64.)

The literature of Smith (2008) makes further observations that the socio dramatic quality of the children’s play

enhances a child’s ability to understand the knowledge and beliefs of others, to realise that other children can

have a different belief or state of knowledge different from their own. The observed data collected in this

study provides a range of examples in which different children engaging in fantasy violence play displayed

conflict resolution skills and an understanding of empathy towards each other, as one practitioner observed:

“When they play they really enjoy themselves…they all really care for each other and always make sure they look out for

each other…” (Research Journal, pg.64.)

Further examples of the children’s understanding of the empathy and ability to show care and concern

towards each other, resolve conflict and redesign their play to support friends when engaged in social play that

includes fantasy violence, can be seen in this studies research notes and these two specific examples:

“I invited his teacher to sit and watch the group play. During this time Arif invented the groups play narrative, shared

innovative ideas, creative language and ensured that their play remained in a space away from other teachers

observations. He negotiated arguments over narrative development to a compromised conclusion and stopped the play

when a peer fell over to make sure he wasn’t hurt. Arif’s teacher watched, then commented, “I got him wrong.”

(Research Journal, pg.36)

18/04/2012

Today I decided that I would try as much as possible to remain outside of the play. I really wanted to conduct an

observation in which I observed the children engaged in their own play choices. I am concerned that at times, the children’s

play choices are becoming influenced by my involvement in their play.

I decided to again arrive late so that the session would have begun. The groups were out in the garden engaged in some

play. I watched from a distance. The game involved Arif, Aiden, Ali, and Dillain, it was one we had created a few weeks ago

in which the children would hide colourful stones and gems around the garden then venture on a quest to find them. Today

44

0940649

they were, “Firestones”. The play was very physical with lots of pretend fighting; each child with a “Firestone” could

seemingly project fire from their hands and kill their enemies. They also seemed to have the powers of firing lazers from

their fingers. While I was watching what seemed to be a very energetic display of kicks and lazer firing, Ali slipped and fell.

Arif instantly stopped the game, telling the others to stop, ran over and helped Ali up asking, “Are you ok, are you ok?” Once

he was sure Ali was ok he told the group not to play by the hoops ad skipping ropes, “you could fall, let’s move over to the

playground.”

(Research Journal, pg.45)

The children in this cohort used fantasy violence play to support their construction of innovative narratives and

develop their understanding of empathy. These observations challenge the appropriateness of the currently

self adopted zero tolerance approach towards this kind of play enforced by the settings early years team. It

provides a significant insight into how such a constant source of preoccupation can provide the stimulus for

children to rehearse, negotiate, re develop and perform complex narratives within a socially constructed

learning experience which significantly supports the development of the children’s oracy skills. These findings

not only challenge the literature of Dunn and Hughes (2001), Smith-Sutton (1988), Watson and Peng (1992)

and Carlsson-Paige and Levin (1990) but are also supported by the arguments presented in the literature of

Grossman S (2008) Katch (2002), Thompson. M (2000) Paley (1988) Rich (2003) Singer(1990) T. G. Powers

(2000) and Jarvis (2007) which provide, alongside the observational data and dialogue with colleagues, a

theoretical triangulation to this discussion.

This research literature also identifies, as did this ethnography, how for certain children fantasy violence play

presents a learning context through which they can use language to create rich stories and develop an

understanding of empathy towards the thoughts and feelings of other. For example, Jarvis (2007) observed in

her ethnographical piece of research how ‘the boys’ clearly showed care and concern towards each other in

order not to exclude others from the play. In this thesis’s literature review, it was also discussed how Logue

(2008) observed how after witnessing the importance of the “Bad Guy” in the narratives and language

experiences developed by the children, the participating practitioners changed their perceptions on the value

of such play. This finding would also indicate a need for a similar change in perceptions and practice by the

early year’s team supporting the children in this reception cohort.

45

0940649

4.3.3 The children used fantasy violence themed play to improve child self agency.

Fantasy violence themed play with their close friends provided for the children in this study a context through

which they could develop their self agency; there ability to overcome or cope with perceived fears. A range of

specifically observed data recorded in this ethnography supports this statement, some examples are included

here:

“16/11/2011: Leena “Becoming Strong” Jones (2002)

This dragon game has become a favourite amongst the children in the reception cohort. On joining them in their play I am

instantly asked, “Can you play Dragons with us?” On this occasion while I joined in with a narrative created by a group of

five children, I watched as Leena stood, disengaged, and then ran inside to her class teacher crying. I left the game to take a

position away from the group to listen in to Leena’s conversation with her teacher.

Leena “There’s dragons out there, its scary..I don’t like them”

Teacher: “Show me where leena”

Leena: No

Teacher: “Come on Leena, there not dragons… its just your friends playing…lets go and play...”

Leena: “No”

At this point a group of Leena’s friends came over to see what was wrong, the explained the games narrative, they were

dragons searching for lost diamonds but they were being chased by bears that could leap in the sky and catch them with

their claws and that their were dragon hunters who were with a queen.

Teacher: “Leena, Why don’t we make a net and try and catch the dragon that’s scaring you?

Leena pointed to me.

Leena’s teacher came outside with her and sat with Leena watch our game, Leena and her teacher decided to make a giant

net from ropes and hoops to catch me and the other dragons, Leena also made a small dragon catcher from a tube and

yoghurt pot. Lenna, with the support of her teacher soon engaged in the play, developing a new narrative shared by the

other children, the adventures of the dragons who lived by the tree and the dragon chasers who lived in the big wooden

boat.

46

0940649

During this time Leena was very focused on sharing her ideas and rehearsing her thoughts on how she would catch me, her

teacher sustained this use of language for thinking by structuring Leena’s ideas and offering suggestions and improvements

to support her thoughts. Eventually Leena had created a dragon net she was happy with, , as I continued to play my role as

a dragon I pretended to fly over the construction/junk modeling area where Leena had been making her net and talking

with her teacher. Leena joined up with Jenika, a confident dragon game player, and after a few attempts at catching her

friends, leena ran over and trapped me with her net.

From this point leena became fully engaged in the play for over 45 minutes, chasing, catching and contributing to the

narrative of the play.

This game became a favourite for most of the children, with Leena becoming the princess of the dragon catchers, played

over three more days.

A great example of fantasy play, adult sustained participation in play, supporting child self agency”

(Research Journal, pg 7-8.)

“14/03/2012

Dillian

Today he seemed very quiet and withdrawn from his friends. As I joined the group on the carpet and asked what was

wrong, Arif told me that Dillian’s house had been burgled.

I asked Dillian if he wanted to talk about this, if this was what was upsetting him, it was and he began retelling how he had

been woken up by his Mum screaming and how he had seen the burglars.

“In my house we were all asleep and the downstairs alarm went and my Mum said there’s a burglar in the house and my

sister screamed and was crying...”

At this point Arif put his arm around Dillian continued Dillan’s story,

“Yeah then you did a flip and got your lazer guns and killed them” explaining how Dillian had then somersaulted over the

stairs, had taken out his swords and killed the burglars, then how hundreds more came up the stairs, but Dillian was too

strong for them all and he used his power Ranger skills to kill them all.

47

0940649

“We got some more guns and my lizards and we kept shooting and there were so many burglars and we got all our guns

and swords and fighted them and there was blood and we killed them all and a big momma came in a car with the police

and they came and helped us.”

Dillian’s appearance instantly changed, he joined Arif, all smiles, on the carpet to act out his slaying of the burglars through

a range of staged rolls, dives and pretend fight scenes. After this short play, he sat back down with me, told me he felt

better and that his Mum loved him and wouldn’t let anyone hurt him.”

(Research Journal, pg.23-24.)

“21/03/2012

Vansham, Power and magic stones

Vansham is a child described by his supporting practitioners as quiet, shy, nervous, easily intimated by others, withdrawn.

But, in our dinosaurs and magic stones play, created in the garden, Vansham became a confident player, sharing ideas,

collecting the magic stones, building a cave for the dinosaurs and stones to be stored in, negotiating with others narratives

for their socio-dramatic playing which he became the keeper of the stones, the person most powerful within the group,

using the stones to help the dinosaurs and fight off other children acting as dragon invaders, trying to pinch the stones from

the cave he built.

Vansham remained in this most powerful, stone keeper role”

(Research Journal, pg. 24.)

13/06/2012

Rana being Strong (Jones 2002)

Homemade heroes.

Rana is a child who has a poor self image, when asked what she is good at, she often replies: nothing, her Mum and Dad

have separated and her home life is split between her two new families, she spends alternate weeks with Dad, Step Mother

and Step family and with Mum and her three sisters and brother. On occasions her parents have been warned about

inappropriate ways in which they discipline the children. During this homemade heroes project, Rana’s whole self image

and learning disposition/attitude to school completely changed. During this project she created an amazing costume,

participated in collaborative super hero play in the garden and just generally seemed a much more confident, happy child.

At the end of the week both her Mum and Dad came in to talk to her teacher about the confidence she had shown at home,

48

0940649

how each evening she would talk about what was happening at school, ask Mum to help with her costume and get up early

ready for school.”

(Research Journal, pg.54-55.)

09/05/2012

Kevin and “The Hulk”.

Today I thought I would try and catch up with Kevin. When I found him, he was sat on a chair in the corner of the room

drawing. As he turned around he revealed a large stitched cut across his forehead, just above his right eye. His teacher and

classroom assistant told me, in front of Kevin, how he had been dangerous at home, climbed a tree and fell. While they

were both obviously concerned about Kevin, their seemed to be a sense of, “That’s what happens when you play like that

Kevin” attached to their explanations of his accident.

Kevin gave me a quick acknowledging smile, turned back around and carried on with his drawing, visibly upset.

He was wearing a Hulk T-shirt, I pulled up a chair next to him and began to draw a picture of The Hulk leaping over

buildings. He smiled, laughed and showed me his T-shirt. I asked him if he wanted to go and play Hulk in the garden. He did,

we went out and enjoyed a great game of jumping, leaping and striding like The Hulk. We had a chat about being safe,

then carried on our game. His complete persona changed, from a child quietly sat drawing in a classroom corner to the

Kevin I knew, up, active, smiling and engaged in his favourite kind of play.

I know from discussions with Kevin’s class teacher that his mother dominates his life, waking him up early each morning to

“Study” before school and taking him to language and maths tutoring classes after the school day. In school, Kevin’s play

choices are as equally controlled, he receives a consistent zero tolerance to any of his most valued play themes.

When discussing his accident, while all the adults in our reception team were obviously upset about his accident, all adults

shared in a sense of, “Well that’s what happens,” linking the accident directly to his “nature” his pre occupation with rough

and tumble play, as if the cut was a justification for the disapproval and zero tolerance of his play choices.

Maybe it is, I too was shocked by the cut and watching Kevin sat down in the corner of the room, drawing quietly away

from friends and play was almost as equally upsetting.

But, his transformation in character, once engaged in Hulk play in my view evidenced the impact this kind of play can have

on our young learners.

49

0940649

That night I picked up “Killing Monsters” By Jones (2002) coincidently, in the chapter “Being Strong” Jones (2002) makes a

direct reference to The Hulk.

“The character who entranced me, freed me, was the Incredible Hulk: overgenderised and undersocialised...raging against a

frightened world that misunderstood and persecuted him...The Hulk smashed through the walls of fear I’d been carrying

inside me and freed me to feel everything I had been repressing, rage and pride and the hunger for power over my own

life...Suddenly I had a fantasy self who could show me what it felt like to be unafraid of my own desires and the world’s

disapproval.” (page 15)

While I would obviously never wish to promote dangerous play, being “The Hulk” seemed to provide Kevin with a much

needed sense of self agency, a play narrative through which he could return to his old self, rediscover his “power.”

(Research Journal, pg. 45-47.)

In considering, “Reflexivity” it is acknowledged that this finding is closely connected to the personal viewpoint

of the researcher. However, this finding can be triangulated with a range of research literature and theory.

Jones (2002); Holland (2002;2003); Rich (2003) and Pellegrini and Smith (2008) hypothesis that this kind of play

enhances children’s emotional securities by allowing them the opportunity to work through anxieties by

acting them out in pretend play. This studies observed data combined with the literature of Jones (2002)

Thompson (2000) Logue (2008) Katch (2002) Rich(2002) Compton-Lilly (2006) Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence

(1973) reinforces the validity of the discussion that for some of the children in this reception cohort, fantasy

violence play provides a significant set of experiences through which they develop their ability to reposition

themselves in relation the position their peers have dictated to them and their ability to cope with their fears

and anxieties, (Compton-Lilly, 2006). The importance of this finding is further described by Holland (2002)

observing that a,

“Zero tolerance to this kind of play inhibits us from supporting the children’s development of other imaginative and

negotiating skills which may mediate the real risk factors present in our children’s lives.” (Holland, 2002 pg.4)

The literature of Pehrsson and Pehrsson (2007) extends both the discussion of this finding and the literature in

chapter two which advocates that fantasy violence play supports children in developing their self agency.

Pehrsson and Pehrsson’s (2007) Language Fantasy Approach, involves children creating a myth in which their

story characters meet and overcome challenges. A group of three or four children learn to cooperate and gain

50

0940649

courage as their story characters work together to deal with monsters and other villains. Children learn to take

appropriate risks and to realise the consequences initially in their stories and then in their own lives. Pehrsson

and Pehrsson (2007) have documented, over the past thirty years, how The Language Fantasy Approach leads

to self-discovery and personal growth, as well as an increase in courage and more positive social interactions.

Pehrsson and Pehrsson (2007) research, like that of Jones (2002) Thompson (2000) Logue (2008) Katch (2002)

Rich(2002) discusses how story characters act as alter egos that are eventually assimilated to the child’s

original ego and how due to the initial safe distance of the alter egos of their characters, children are willing to

take risks and test the consequences. Pehrsson and Pehrsson (2007) research illustrates how children engaged

in this fantasy play gradually gain courage, make decisions, experience effects, and learn to work well with

others.

The discussion of this finding is significantly important when considering the initial genesis of this thesis’s

construction, which was to construct a piece of action research that would test the theoretical idea advocated

in the literature, amongst others, of Jones (2002) that by engaging with children in fantasy violence and

superhero play, the school could support the children in improving their self agency, their ability to reposition

their self identity, develop a sense of power and cope with perceived fear. This initial idea for the thesis came

as a response to the results of pupil conferencing and questionnaire exercises which accumulated in March

2010 with 33% of the children’s feedback indicated that they did not always feel safe in the classroom, with

18% responding that they only felt safe some of the time to not at all, while 54% recorded that they only felt

safe some of the time to not at all in the playground. This finding provides a valid and well researched platform

from which to extend the study into a piece of action research or ground theory study that examines further

the concept that by engaging the children in fantasy violence and superhero play, the school could support the

children in improving their self agency.

4.3.4 The Children in this reception cohort used fantasy violence themed play to develop their understanding

of rule making, rule negotiation and share with others a moral sense of what’s right and wrong.

The writing of Paley (1984;1988) describes how no other character than the “Bad Guy” is more rule governed,

how within fantasy violence play, the “Bad Guy” becomes a fantasy character that allows the children to

secretly explore their own fears. How ‘he’ doesn’t have a name or shouldn’t have a birthday. How once

51

0940649

identified, the “Bad Guy” must be dealt with quickly, how the, “Bad Guy” becomes simply a convenient symbol

on which the children can begin hanging rules on and testing them out. The studies of Paley ( 1984;1988)

provide sources of literature that further support the discussion of the finding that the children engaging in

fantasy violence play, in this reception cohort, displayed an increasing ability to make rules, re negotiate them

and share with others a moral sense of what’s right and wrong. These selected examples of recorded

observations provide further observed data that supports this discussion:

“08/02/2012

“Florida Car.”

In this session a group of girls “built” a magical car, “Florida Car” this car could travel anywhere in the world and was

fuelled by flowers picked from our wild meadow and blossom failing from the trees. I was invited to travel with the girls to

Florida.

As I engaged in the game, a group of boys, playing a game in which they were dragons searching for magical stones, came

over and “attacked” the car, knocking down the carefully balanced tile pieces making up the side of the car.

This lead to some rule negotiations between the girls in the car and the boy dragon group, the conclusion, a no boys

allowed rule.

Boys were responsible for breaking the car, so they are no longer allowed. This rule was universally accepted and both

pieces of play continued.

After a short period of time Aiden came over to talk to me, asking why he couldn’t play in the “Florida Car”. I asked him to

go and talk to the girls about this.

Following a short discussion, Aiden managed to negotiate with the girls a new rule, no boys allowed, accept Aiden, who was

invited to collect blossom and travel to Florida.”

(Research journal, pg. 26-28)

18/01/2012

Arif, “The only rule is that you can’t play with the big Lego”

52

0940649

Context: Class u, children aged 5, small group playing on the carpet, amongst them Arif, Dylan and Aidan, three boys with

whom I have developed a close play relationship with. The group is engaged in some kind of alien gun play, guns made from

small Lego, being used to shoot children pretending to be aliens in the face.

Script, drafted from notes made on “post its”

Can I play?

Some children stop, but Arif reengages them by stating, “He’s here to play dragons with us” Play continues.

Can I play, what are you playing?

“Were playing alien sprayers... you build a sprayer from the small lego to spray the aliens with”

Dylan: “there guns, you shoot the aliens”

Arif and Aidan, “There not guns, were not allowed guns”

Is that a rule?

All children: “Teacher doesn’t like them”

What is the rule?

“You only use the small lego, big legos rubbish you cant make things with it... if you need to change your sprayer you cant

make new things with big lego, there no wheels to put cars onto your sprayers, or long bits for wings.”

He three boys show me all the things you can do with the small lego, add wheels to the “sprayers” so that you can chase

aliens on the ground or wings so they can fly, all the time Arif and Aidan use the term, “Sprayers” while Dylan keeps

forgetting and uses the term gun, quickly corrected by the other two because, Teachers don’t like guns”

I know you mean that these are guns and you are using them to shoot each other...you only have a rule that you can’t use

big Lego, but you can shoot each other in the face, is that right?

Arif “Sprayers don’t kill you, they make you smell nice, and they are not people we spray, bad aliens. The rules right, big

lego is no good for making things, like cars wheel or wings if yu need to fly...we can shoot in the face...if you are being

shooted you pretend, cover up, hide or kick the bullets away like a ninja, but big lego cant make the things we need, you

must use little lego.”

So little lego is important?

53

0940649

Yes

Why do teachers not like guns?

Arif “ The teacher doesn’t know that the guns can’t kill her..she doesn’t know anything like that..we haven’t told her that

these are guns”

But you told me?

Arif: “Yes, when you come you let us blow fire on things, you can fly and hang like bats, you let us have wings bigger than

our hands, remember we were rat bats?”

So these are guns?

Arif “I just told you, just false guns, not real, but you have to use little lego.”

Where else do you play with guns?

Arif: “In the big playground when we go there, because teacher can’t see us, if the teachers not around we

play guns...I like playing guns.”

I still don’t get the rule, you can shoot in the face, but not use big lego?

Arif: “Teachers don’t get it, its only pretend, you can shoot in the face its not real but you can’t make things

with big lego, I can make what I need quickly with little lego.”

(Research Journal, pg.9-11.)

21/06/2012

Good must always win

While watching the children play today it occurred to me that in all of the play I have observed, the “good” characters

always seem to be able to jump out the way of lazers and bullets, fight of evil armies, recovery quickly from being stabbed

by swords, but the “Baddies” die quickly. At the end of the session while we were tidying up the garden I started a

conversation:

“Do good guys always win?”

Aagil: “Yes, the best bit was when the bad leopard queen died..it was the best bit because the giant monkey was good”

54

0940649

Aydin: “I love playing Power Rangers coz the rangers never die, they get hurt then they do this... (He went into an acting out

of the moves the power rangers perform when they individually join together into one giant robot) ...then they beat the

monsters, when I do it it makes me feel good.”

Jenika: “ I play a game at home with my brother, he is the bad black Spiderman with 10 ears and 10 mouths, I was the good

spider girl and I always catch him with my strings.”

“When we play the dragons game, I always want to be the queen so my penguin army can frozen the bears army and save

the dragons.”

The children made it very clear that good always beats evil, but getting to this conclusion took some negotiation between

Arif, Dillan, Jenika, Aydin and Aagil.

The children “ Yes good always wins... no but sometimes like in Power Rangers the monsters nearly win then the Rangers

come back to life and kill the monsters... they don’t die they just get hurt...but they are to strong...good is more powerful

than bad… ….the bad one must die”

Me: “ But if the bad one dies the game ends”

The children” yes..but..he can come back to life...but he must die again”

Me: “so the bad one can comeback to life and maybe win?”

The children: “Yes... ...no...”

Me: “So the game ends”

The children: “Yes...no... He can comeback to life but can’t win”

(Research Journal, pg. 59)

4.4.4 The incorporation of childhood cultural influences, connected to fantasy violence play, within the

learning environment extended the time the children spent engaged in socio dramatic play.

Children’s fantasy violence play which incorporated a wide range of childhood cultural influences, such as

Power Rangers and Marvel superheroes, resulted in play experiences and engagement in socio dramatic play

that was sustained over a longer period of time, compared to play directed by adult practitioners. This finding

is validated by observations recorded in this studies research journal:

55

0940649

“Vansham remained in this most powerful, stone keeper role, for over 40 minutes, negotiating narratives, acting out fight

scenes in which he used the stones to defend his cave and most notably using language to re negotiate with peers the

direction of the plays narratives.” (Research Journal, pg.24)

“23/05/2012

Homemade heroes.

While playing with the children this week I made myself a superheroes costume from an old blanket hidden in our dressing

up clothes. The group loved the idea of making costume so we all made some improvised outfits from materials, blankets,

felt pens, glue and paper.

I asked the teachers if it was ok that this week as part of their home learning a flyer could be sent out asking parents to help

their children make a homemade superheroes outfit.

Normally, any kind of creative or innovative home learning activity is only engaged in by our most dedicated families, on

average four families per class. However, in response to this flyer on average 28 out of the 30 children in each of the three

classes returned to school on the Monday with their home made outfits.

I am a little concerned that my actions here are more in line with action research methods as opposed to observing the

children engaged in their normal play routines. But, as a school we do regularly send out creative and innovative home

learning projects based on observations of what the children have enjoyed during the week, I just suggested a superheroes

one might be appropriate based on how much they enjoyed the play.

Howard (2010) in a piece of research identifying barriers to play in early years practice indentifies how “Parental Influence”

can be a major barrier to practitioners developing play within school, Howard (2010) argues that her research shows that

the main priority for the parents of the children in these practitioners’ classes was success, communicated to them through

high attainment scores in the Foundation Stage Profile.

This seemed not the case with this home learning project. Our Headmaster came to find me later in the day to discuss why

this home learning project had been so successful compared to the low take up of other such projects. It was his view that

this project, the need to make a superhero costume, must have been one of immense importance to the children.

One parent shared with me how her daughter, “Star Girl” insisted all weekend that she needed a costume, to the point

where Mum found herself stitching a cape at 11pm Sunday evening.” (Research Journal, pg. 53)

56

0940649

“the play moved from chasing format into a rich shared/sustained narrative with the play often lasting over the whole

session, 1 and ½ hours.” (Research Journal, pg.6)

“From this point leena became fully engaged in the play for over 45 minutes, chasing, catching and contributing to the

narrative of the play.” (Research Journal,pg.7)

“This game became a favourite for most of the children, with Leena becoming the princess of the dragon catchers, played

over three more days.” (Research Journal, pg. 8)

A theoretical triangulation can also be made between this interpreted finding, dialogue with others and a

range of literature. The discussion of this finding is further supported by the research of Compton-Lilly (2006).

Compton-Lilly (2006) demonstrated how teachers can successfully utilise media and cultural resources that lie

outside of the traditional walls of school to create learning experiences that are uniquely responsive to

individual students by essentially getting the children to engage not only with their pupil voice but also their

childhood and media culture. The importance of utilising childhood culture to sustain child engagement in

complex, social play also features in the literature of McCarthey and Moje (2002); Christensen and James

(2002); Katch (2002); Louge (2008); Erikson (1950); James, Jenks, and Prout (2004) and Jones(2002). This

finding is further supported by The DCSF (2007) publication reviewed in chapter two, which highlighted the

effective practice developed by two schools who both sort to embrace boys fascination with superhero play

and incorporate these play choices into the experiences they provided. This publication highlighted how the

practitioners in the two nurseries involved themselves as much as they could in the boys’ superhero play and

how in doing so, they developed an opportunity to sustain the children’s imaginative thought processes.

This ethnography identified that the incorporation of childhood cultural influences within the learning

environment supported and extended the time the children spend engaged in socio dramatic play, however,

the children in this reception cohort, especially the boys, share the experiences outlined by Paley’s (1984)

literature, which questions the cliches and prejudices of the teacher's curriculum that reward girls' domestic

play while discouraging boys' adventurous fantasies.

57

0940649

4.4.5 The majority of female practitioners and teachers supporting this cohort displayed prejudices towards

rewarding the creative play of the girls while showing a zero tolerance towards the boys' adventurous

fantasy play.

The children in this reception cohort used war disclosure within their fantasy violence play in the gender

stereotypical ways as identified by Kyratizis (2000, pg. 63) in Jarvis (2010). In this study the boys would often

seek to be most dominant, girls to be the nicest. While girls war disclosure narratives “seeked” to indicate and

consolidate alliances, boys narratives seemed designed to emphasize how authority flouting/dominant an

individual can be. These recorded observations of children’s games provide clear examples of such

stereotypical play:

11/04/2012

The Octopus Narrative.

While the group were building a new nest, Emmy disappeared, when she returned she had brought back a collection of old

dinosaur toys that had feet and tails missing or broken off. She placed them on top of the caves they had built and told Arif,

“We need to save these as well, the pigs, ducks and sheep have eaten bits of them when they were stuck in the snow” She

saw me watching and explained that the dinosaurs had been eaten, when stuck in the snow, by the pigs, ducks and sheep,

pointing to puppets she had made and stuck up on the classroom window looking out into the garden. She told me that the

octopus was a good octopus, so he would help them.

Ali and Arif were listening to Emmy’s narrative and they came over with lego dragons they had been building, they

explained that these dragons would guard the “half eaten dinosaurs” and stop the other animals attacking them.

What was really interesting was as I watched this narrative develop, Emmy was very interested in the elements of the

octopus helping the injured dinosaurs, and really enjoyed watching the boys act out with their lego dragons scenes of

dragon and pig puppet battles, but she herself would not engage in the fantasy violence play, she would ask the boys to

attack the other toys, puppets and defend the caves, but not actually act out the fantasy violence fights herself. She would

watch, laugh, wait then nurse the octopus, dolphins and dragons after the fight scenes had finished.

Kyratizis (2000 pg 63) in Jarvis (2010) indentifies how both genders engage in war disclosure play, play through which boys

seek to be most dominant, girls to be the nicest, while girls war disclosure narratives seek to indicate and consolidate

alliances, nurture and care for others, boys narratives are designed to emphasize how authority flouting/dominant an

individual can be.

58

0940649

This seemed to be also exactly what I was watching.

(Research journal, pg. 41-42)

12/07/2012: Girl War disclosure play/ being strong (Jones 2002)

Flying Princesses, evil witches and dead kittens.

In this observed play seven girls, Maleeha, Pavan, Gia, Zahra Jenika and Emmy created a narrative in which a group of evil

witches would kill and group of kittens, but these kittens were then saved by a group of flying princesses.

“The kittens are dead, but we don’t want them really dead or dead for the whole game, just dead so we can save them.”

Emmy.

“Being dead for the whole game is boring, I like it when we save them coz I like using my powers to bring them back to life,

I like my powers.” Pavan

In watching this group of girls play their narratives and adoption of roles within the game reminded me of Kyratizis (2000

pg 63) in Jarvis (2010) who indentifies how both genders engage in war disclosure play, play through which boys seek to be

most dominant, girls to be the nicest, while girls war disclosure narratives seek to indicate and consolidate alliances, boys

narratives are designed to emphasise how authority flouting/dominant an individual can be.

This group of girls would passionately act out being dying kittens, fly in and rescue each other as magical princesses,

constantly swapping these roles, however, none of them would be the witch killing the kittens without an emotional

argument over whose turn it should be. They all wanted to help and save the kittens, but not pretend to kill them.

Eventually, Emmy asked some of her boy friends if they could be the evil witches that killed the kittens, this request was

enthusiastically accepted as Arif, Ali, Arjan, and Dillan changed the narrative away from evil witches to powerful robots

who caught the kittens and imprisoned them in a disused shed. This observed play seemed to mirror the gender

stereotyping of war closure play described by Kyratizis (2000 pg 63). The boys relished the roles of catching, imprisoning

and killing the girls pretending to be kittens, in a non aggressive but fantasy violence themed play. The girls equally enjoyed

sharing the roles of being kittens and flying princesses.

Throughout the whole play roles, narratives and story lines were well negotiated with the children displaying a high level of

empathy to towards the concerns of those pretending to be dying kittens imprisoned in the shed. The boys really enjoyed

being the evil robots and while acting out a quite horrific narrative they were careful to ensure that as they chased and

caught the girls they carefully helped them under the frame, actual physical contact was very well managed.

59

0940649

This play lasted over the complete session, 45 minutes, and was full of rich language, negotiation and narrative

development all experienced through a child autonomously created piece of socially complex play.”

(Research Journal, pg. 60-61)

This ethnography recorded how certain teachers and practitioners in this early year’s team congratulated girls

on their war disclosure play, viewing it as an expression of their growing confidence, but found it difficult to

accept certain war disclosure play choices designed by the boys as positive and regularly devalued the play

choices of the boys by displaying a zero tolerance approach to their developing socio dramatic play narratives.

The research of Garaigordobi and Berrucco (2011); Olusoga (2008) and Paley (1984) share this interpretative

finding by also identifying that for boys their play choices are often subject to cliches and prejudices displayed

by teachers and practitioners. Extracts from the studies research journal exemplify how this interpretation has

been made:

“I don’t like that kind of play” (Teacher talking about why a zero tolerance is shown to Kevin’s play choices)

29/02/2012

Kevin, aged 5

Kevin constantly builds and plays with self made guns, it is arguably his most valued play and learning experience. In his

classroom there is the most beautiful castle, fabric roof, painted cardboard front, opening door, dramatic sky and cloud

scene. Furnished inside with chairs, tables, books, princess clothes and accessories, fairy lights, tea sets.

Kevin just wants to make guns and attack the castle.

Everytime he does, he is instantly put on the red traffic light, no warning, move to amber then red, just straight to red. But

for Kevin, this play is too valuable, almost seemingly too addictive to stop, it always continues and results in a stern telling

off and warning that he will be sent to the headteacher.

Kevin’s most valued play is instantly devalued by the adults in the room, play that he will continually return to regardless of

consequences to the point of sitting outside the head teachers office.

On the sessions when I am in the classroom with Kevin, I take his play outside, we build dens, hunt, capture and engage in

imaginary gun play. His language flows, his excitement builds but most of all his focus on sustaining engagement in the

activity increases, as does the quality of his play.

60

0940649

(Research Journal, pg.20)

26/10/2011 to 02/11/2011

Jenika, Sana and dragon catching.

The observation by Olusoga (2008,p64) relates directly to a very similar observation I had witnessed on the day I choose to

pick up this text.

The boys were simply playing dragons, chasing, catching, imprisoning each other in imaginary caves, laughing, collectively

swapping roles, while the teacher observed ready to stop the play at any sign of physical contact, but the contact in this

play was non aggressive, when they were taking each other to imaginary prisons, which were some pieces of material over

some barrels, they supported each other, two children escorting a captured dragon by each arm, but the play was stopped

and the group sent away.

At the same time, Jenika had been creating the role of dragon catchers, taping yogurt pots onto sticks, helped by adults, to

make nets and dragon cages. These were then used to chase and actually hit boys on their backs, in an attempt to capture

them. This play was non aggressive, but celebrated, as play that improved their self esteem, seen as empowering and

imaginative. Even when at one point, where, as self appointed queen, Jenika aggressively declared that, “The boy dragons

would all be in prison in the caves and killed” there was no reaction from observing practitioners, no stopping of the play.

Olusoga (2008,p64) observation highlights a sense of double standards, illustrated also by my observations of Jenika and

Sana’s play. Olusoga (2008,p64) states that this double standard relates to female perceptions of rough and tumble play,

but in my experience, I’m not to sure if this is a gender related issue or more to do with what seems to be a generically

adopted default setting, that when observing rough, fantasy violence play created by boys, as adults, we think that the boys

do it just to be rough and physical, yet when girls engage in such imaginative play, we view it as empowering, an expression

of developing self confidence.

(Research Journal, pg.3-4)

23/05/2012

Biannca and the dentists

Biannca, her friends and a classroom assistant have been building a dentists role play area and today they wanted to show

it off. I sat in a chair while they examined me, put my details into the files of an old computer, drilled and fixed fillings,

brushed my teeth, gave me a sticker and sent me home. As I left I thanked the team of three girls for their excellent job and

booked a new appointment. I then went to the side of the classroom to watch the rest of their play. After a short time,

61

0940649

Biannca picked up the toy needle/injection tool and told the group that because she had this she was in charge. Two

children disagreed so they were jabbed. As a result of the jabbing they agreed that Biannca was in charge. Throughout the

rest of the play Biannca used the “jabbing” to control the other children’s roles within the play she wanted to construct,

disagreement resulted in more jabbing. I pointed this out to a classroom assistant who then went over and discussed what I

had seen with Biannca and her friends, they all made up and the assistant left the play area. Within minutes the use of the

“Jabbing” returned, the girls play was not monitored. Watching this again made me think back to an earlier observation;

how Kevin’s play is instantly meet with zero tolerance and red traffic lights, the classrooms ultimate punishment. This

observation also made me think back to a piece from a research journal written by Olusoga (2008 Page 64) in Jarvis (2010)

(Research Journal, pg. 52)

The observed data collected in this ethnography mirrors observations recorded in a study conducted by

Olusoga (2008) as this extract from the study shows:

“The teacher was constantly telling the boys off for playing fighting. They’d used some of the wooden blocks as guns and

pretend to shoot each other. They were giggling all the time and never actually touched each other but she had a no guns

policy and always noticed and stooped this kind of play. On the other hand, some of the girls developed a game whilst

playing sleeping beauty where they would all be fairies with wands. One girl, Natalie always liked to be in charge, and shed

use her wand almost as a weapon, threatening to turn other girls into horrible creatures unless they did as she wanted...like

the gun play it was all pretend and no contact was made, but I felt that sometimes there was real aggression behind it as

each one tried to dominate the play. However the teacher never stopped this, she said that the girls were being creative and

developing language skills when engaged in this sort of fantasy play. To me it seemed like a double standard.”

(Olusoga, 2008, pg. 64)

This ethnography shares the identifications made in The DCSF (2007) publication, “Confident, capable and

creative, supporting boys’ achievements.” identifying a need for the school to ensure that:

1. Whole staff teams agree on a similar approach to valuing, respecting and working with boys in their play choices.

2. Practitioners need to be aware of our own responses to boys when their play seems to be about fighting and power

3. Schools need to begin implementing changes which some staff may find contentious so that boys have access to a

balanced range of experiences.”

(DCSF, 2007, pg 18)

62

0940649

4.4.6 A zero tolerance approach towards fantasy violence themed play, developed by the boys, increased the

incidences of children displaying, “Mistaken Behaviours.” (Gartrell, 1995).

The absence of autonomy over play choice, especially when themed around fantasy violence play or childhood

media culture, resulted in some of the children in this cohort, most notably the boys, displaying ‘Mistaken

Behaviours’ (Gartrell, 1995). This is a term which relates to the theory that children facing a zero tolerance

reaction towards their autonomously created play, experience a sense of doubt over the value of their learning

choices. As discussed in chapter two’s review of literature, ‘Mistaken Behaviours’ (Gartrell, 1995) is a concept

that Fordham and Anderson (1992) Babic (2000) and Maxim (1997) agree with, while Edwards (1993) takes this

concept further, contesting that without autonomy of play choice, children may develop a feeling of hostility

towards adults who allow them little freedom. The observed data collected in this ethnography provides

specific examples of this concept of ‘Mistaken Behaviours’ (Gartrell, 1995).

29/02/2012

Kevin, aged 5

I have a significantly improved learning relationship with Kevin compared to those practitioners who do not value his play

choice, he will often come and find me in the corridors, dinner halls and playgrounds, ask to show me his creations, come

straight over when I turn up on Wednesdays.

His relationship with his teacher and classroom practitioner remains quite hostile.”

(Research Journal, pg.20)

4.4.7 The children who enjoyed engaging in fantasy violence themed play often hid their socio dramatic play

away from certain practitioners conducting surveillance over the learning environment.

The failure of certain adults to see any value in the autonomous play choices of children, especially boys

choosing to engage in fantasy violence play, resulted in the children hiding their play away from the

surveillance of the adult who was meant to support and engage in their learning. This is exampled by these

two pieces of observed data :

63

0940649

28/03/2012 “We play guns and play like that in the big playground cos she can’t she us there” (Research Journal, pg.32)

“When observing Arif and his friends engaged in their most favourite play choice, fantasy violence, it was clear that under

his supervision the group would consistently create socio dramatic play of a high quality. This judgement was made when

comparing the context and content of the play with Bruce’s (2006) quality play charter.

What became most apparent was that Arif was a leader who also used his observations of adults to ensure he and his

friends could still engage in banned make believe violence play, unnoticed. On one occasion when visiting his classroom I

observed how before Arif and his group noticed me they were completely engaged in some kind of make believe weapon

play. On spotting me they stopped, sticks behind their backs. Arif commented, “It’s all right, he lets us play.” I asked him

what he meant, he replied, “she doesn’t let us play, the teacher, but you do.”

After Arif announced this, the group continued in their game, Dragon killing, a favourite we had invented together the week

before.”

Arif’s teacher came over, asking about our conversation. I shared our chat with her and she replied, “Really, I always

thought he was quiet, not very clever, not really wanting to do anything apart from mess about with Dillan.”

I invited his teacher to sit and watch the group play. During this time Arif invented the groups play narrative, shared

innovative ideas, creative language and ensured that their play remained in a space away from other teachers

observations. He negotiated arguments over narrative development to a compromised conclusion and stopped the play

when a peer fell over to make sure he wasn’t hurt. Arif’s teacher watched, then commented, “I got him wrong.”

Arif has explained to me that he doesn’t let teachers see his play because they don’t like it, he saves it for the big

playground where he and his friends can’t always be seen, or for when I turn up because I let him play.

Arif seems to understand and play a game in which he apparently conforms to expectations, but secretly engages in his real

play choices in seemingly invisible spaces.

Arif seems to be making his own observations on the adults surveying and engaging in his play. He seems to then be using

his observations to inform his decisions as to when and when not to engage in his most valued play. It is also my view that

he uses this surveillance of adults and his reading of their perceptions on his play choice to control when his friends also

engage in this play and when they can disclose what they are up to with an adult.”

(Research Journal, pg.36-38.)

Jarvis (2007) concluded her ethnographical piece of research by discussing how while she observed the boys

engaged in complex social and symbolic play development, these positive experiences were not seen by those

adults surveying the play, these very real learning experiences just became part of what Jarvis (2007) terms

“The Invisible Playground.” This concept of, “The Invisible Playground” was observed in this ethnography when

64

0940649

watching how adults very quickly stopped both fantasy violence play and rough and tumble playground

football play, failing to see the value it presents to some children, viewing it as nothing but dangerous:

“07/03/2012

Kaisan, links to Jarvis (2010) observations of playground football.

I dislike the fact that in our school you can only; “Officially” enjoy playground football on Thursday. Kaisan, aged 6, enjoys

playground football. He is a very quiet child, whose teacher is looking to find ways of building up his confidence, self esteem

and ability to assert himself. Yet, during a game of playground football, these observed self doubts disappear, and when

adopting the role of team captain, he instantly becomes admired by others and suddenly finds a loud, commanding voice,

an ability to vocally communicate thoughts and ideas quickly to others, he experiences being a leader. But he can only do

this once a week. Rough and Tumble Playground football is deemed by some as too dangerous.” (Research Journal, pg.23.)

10/05/2012

The children engaging in fantasy violence play face a zero tolerance reaction, they are asked to stop and play something

else, but, the practitioners resourcing this space provide very little in the way of alternative stimulus within the

environment, the practitioners also fail to engage with the children in an alternative play narrative. The play is simply

stopped. (Research Journal, pg. 48)

The literature of Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence (1973) (1985), Craske, (1998) and Gurney (1987) in Compton-

Lilly (2006), further supports the discussion of a need for the practitioners and teachers supporting the

learning in this early years environment to re-examine the way they response to challenging play choices, to

overcome the feeling of, “Stressful Surveillance” and make “Visible” the children’s autonomously created play.

Both the literature and observational data collected in this ethnography clearly identify how when children

and adults fail to connect meaningfully within shared and sustained learning environments, the self esteem of

young learners can be damaged and ultimately lead to cumulative failure (Mojie and Mcarthy- Lawerence,

1973).

4.4.8 The majority of practitioners supporting this reception cohort were reluctant to engage in the

children’s play.

Observations of this early year’s practitioner team identified that the majority of adults in this team found it

difficult to join children in their own play choices. The main barriers to adult engagement in children’s play

65

0940649

related to the view adopted by this team that the adult’s main priorities were to construct directed learning

experiences, keep the children safe and to evidence the children’s learning by the completion of daily detailed

and documented foundation stage profile records. This analysis can be exemplified by comments recorded in

this studies field notes:

“They are just charging around, being dangerous” “They just charge around...I can’t play with them...I have to make sure

they are safe.”

“I don’t get to play like that anymore...you can’t, you have to observe so you can fill in the profile data”

“I try to play with the children, but I just feel like I am chasing my tail...trying to collect evidence for my profile children,

keep them safe and share their learning targets… I would love to get back and play with them.”

(Research Journal, pg. 48.)

Low adult to child ratio in the reception garden spaces presented a main barrier to adults relinquishing their

surveillance role and choosing to engage in the children’s play. The writing of Bishop and Curtis, (2001)

discusses how the emotional pressure experienced by supervising adults within such environments as the

school playground, renders most of the positives of this form of play as invisible. This “pressure” was recorded

on one occasion:

28/03/2012

Experiencing stressful surveillance myself.

During my time in the reception garden today I experienced this concept of stressful surveillance first hand. The garden

space was busy, with one group of children engaged in r/t playground football, one group playing dinosaurs on large floor

mats with figures and two groups playing with me, a return to Florida cars and the octopus play. After a short period of

time I realised that play in the garden had suddenly become unusually hectic, in looking round I noticed that the two other

practitioners had actually gone back inside, in the next five minutes, two children hurt themselves playing football, one girl

fell into a tray of water trying to reach a toy dolphin and I gained a real genuine experience of the stressful surveillance

concept explored in Jarvis (2010) dangerous spaces. As soon as I found the missing practitioners and assigned them back to

engaging with the play happening in the garden, “normal” play resumed. I was again able to effectively engage in their

play. Quality play depended upon adult ratio and engagement.

(Research Journal, pg. 36.)

66

0940649

It should be noted, “Stressful surveillance” only occurred in this ethnography when adult to child ratios in the

garden were unacceptably low.

‘A Double Standard’ (Olusoga, 2008) in the value of play seemed to exist in this team. For many of the

practitioners, when they did engage in play it was out of a sense of duty or a need to evidence Foundation

Stage Creative Development Profile scores. Discussions with the practitioners in this early years team identified

how “play” was not always viewed as a valuable way in which children learn, just a way in which they enjoy

times between the real business of learning, with the real business taking place at a table with an adult in a

focus activity designed to meet the children’s identified learning targets. While the practitioners and teachers

were happy to see the children absorbed in play, they remained reluctant to become engrossed in the play

itself, viewing it as an activity to fill in time between other daily businesses, often ending the play abruptly,

ready to tidy up or move on to the next directed piece of learning or event of the day. In using low –inference

descriptors to validate this analysis, the following comments recorded in this studies journal illustrate both a

reluctance to engage in play and a confirmation that for most practitioners in this study, engaging in play with

the children is not a main priority:

“I would love to get back and play, but don’t have the time.”

“You can’t play like you do with them on Wednesday’s … we need to evidence what their doing for our profiles.”

“I don’t get to play like that anymore...you can’t, you have to observe so you can fill in the profile data”

“Great you’re here…I will leave them with you to play in the garden… I need to catch up with assessments”

“You can’t just play…there too much else to do.”

“It’s alright, let Dan just play with them we can get on with the serious work.”

(Research Journal, pg.31-32)

While the majority of practitioners in this study remained reluctant to engage in children’s play, for those that

did, the inherent value of joining the children in their play became increasingly more obvious.

67

0940649

4.4.9 When adults engaged in the children’s autonomously created fantasy violence play, the value of such

play became apparent and allowed for a “Symbiotic Learning Relationship” (Pascal and Bertram, 1997) to be

created through which the narrative of the play was shared, sustained and enjoyed by both the adults and

the children.

While acknowledging a “relativist” awareness of the reflective nature of social knowledge and the inevitable

influence of the researcher’s “self on the whole research endeavour” (Denscombe, 2007, pg 73), this

ethnography identified how when adults working in this early years setting engaged in the children’s play, a

“Symbiotic relationship” (Pascal and Bertram, 1997) with the children was created, which ensured the play was

sustained, of high quality, enjoyable and full of learning potential. This finding is supported by various pieces of

observed data recorded in this studies research journal and can be exemplified through these specific pieces:

“Initially I wanted to watch the children to see how they choose to play, they straight away began to engage in the

“chasing” play discussed earlier. After joining in, I decided to see if we could build a narrative within this play, introducing

simple silk scarves the play developed into a game of Dragons, flying, chasing and catching each other. By using the

principles of sustained shared thinking outlined by Blatchford, I was able to support the children in developing the play from

simply chasing into a narrative tale, dragons flying from different identified places in the garden, there home by the sheds,

there cave, over the ocean and pirates ship, the wooden boat and to the land of the penguins, the water trays, where we

killed bears to save the penguins.

By introducing chalk we quickly draw places on the floor, new characters in the game, rat bats, and when finding some

shiny pebbles under a pot we also co constructed a new tale of dragon kings, ice princesses, penguin armies and dragon

catchers, Leena.

By following the principles and guidance outlined by Sirji Blatchford, the play moved from chasing format into a rich

shared/sustained narrative with the play often lasting over the whole session, 1 and ½ hours.”

(Research journal, pg. 6-7)

11/04/2012

Xanthe is the reception year group coordinator in my school. During this project it would be fair to comment that up to this

point she has entertained and hosted my observational sessions more as a favour to a friend then a real commitment to the

actual underlining ideas behind the study. However, after sharing some of my own nostalgic memories of school play and a

discussion with Xanthe about my views relating to a need for us to begin building nostalgic futures for our children, Xanthe’s

68

0940649

approach to the project notably changed. On my next visit Xanthe came out and observed me, observing the children,

watched how I then shared their play and became a full participant in the play. She also stayed to listen to us talk about the

game we had created.

Later on in the day, Xanthe came to find me to discuss a play session she had shared with a group of children in the garden.

She explained how while she was watching she could see how the group were beginning to build a narrative around some

form of pirate and princesses play, situated at the back of the garden by the old wooden boat. Xanthe explained how the

play had some form of chasing and capturing element, the boys chasing the girls, catching them and then putting them into

the boat. Xanthe guessed the boys were pirates, chasing the princesses and catching them, but while watching, she soon

realised that the “pirates” were actually saving the girls from invisible sharks.

Xanthe discussed with me how she was actually close to stopping the play, seeing it as rough, the boys charging around

catching girls, but soon realised that firstly, no one was upset, hurt or unhappy and secondly ,the boys were actually acting

out a kind of super hero play, defending the girls from monster sharks.

(Research Journal, pg.39.)

“When I joined in their own play, it was such a good experience; they played for ages and were really imaginative”

(Research Journal, pg. 69.)

13/06/2012

“Did you see Arif, Ali and the boys, when you came in and joined in their play they got so excited, your like a big hero to

them” (Research journal, pg. 57)

“18/07/2012

Dragons, Sea Witches and warrior fishermen.

Throughout this study I have been sharing my observations with a smaller group of practitioners in an attempt to almost

see if they agree, disagree, validate or triangulate the interpretations I have been making, a colluding of ideas and

thoughts. It was not the intention of this study to change the practice of the adults supporting the children in this cohort,

however, on joining the children in their play today I entered the garden space to find the children already engaged in a play

narrative supported by a range of resources, including a new box of “fantasy Violence” props. I discussed this new

development with the practitioners in the garden; the response I received was unexpected:

69

0940649

Raj and Yvonne: “We watch how they love playing with you...your like their hero...we didn’t like the idea of them playing

like this but they really do look after each other...when they play they get so excited...its what they want to do.”

Laura: “When we went to visit the our reception schools their gardens and play spaces looked so good, we need to do

something with ours”

(Research Journal, pg. 69.)

However, the moments in which the adults engaged in the children’s autonomously created play were very

limited. The observations recorded in this study’s research journal reflect the literature, reviewed in chapter

two, of Howard (2010) Johnson (1994), McMullen and Alat (2002) Cohen (2006), Cheng and Stimpson, (2004)

and Mcinnes et.al (2009). This ethnography illustrated how while many of the practitioners in this reception

team remain reluctant to engage in children’s play, for those who did, the inherent value of this action became

clear and influenced their approach to future practice, but the prioritizing of assessment procedures to

evidence progress and attainment, a lack in play skills and a lack of theoretical knowledge presented a set of

significant barriers that prevented many adults from engaging in the children’s play.

4.4.10 A lack of “play practice” skills and theoretical and understanding of the value of play were identified

as barriers to practitioners developing shared and sustained moments of play with the children in this

reception cohort.

This finding shares the discussions presented in the research and literature of Howard (2010) Johnson (1994),

McMullen and Alat (2002) Cohen (2006), Cheng and Stimpson, (2004) and Mcinnes et.al (2009) Wood and

Attfield (2005) and Blatchford (2004). This range of literature, shares this thesis’s finding that a lack of

theoretical knowledge and lack of play practice skills present significant barriers to practitioner participation in

sustained play. McInnes (2009) writing in connection to this finding observes that play in its purest forms raises

the possibility of children engaging in types of play for which practitioners are not always theoretically

prepared. In validating this finding, it can be observed through conversations recorded in this study’s research

journal how practitioners in this study shared the view that they were both lacking in a theoretical

understanding on the importance of play and in need of professional development to support their actual skills

in joining and sustained children’s play:

70

0940649

“I was watching you play with them and they were so engaged, all morning, I would love to play like that with them but I

don’t know how. How do you get to play with them like that for so long? When I am out here they just charge around.”

“I would love to get back and play with them but I’ve forgotten how.”

(Research Journal, pg.5.)

A collection of photographs which show the learning environments in which the practitioners expected play to

occur can be seen in this ethnography’s research journal, (pg. 46-50). These pictures provide further evidence

that support the discussion that barriers to the effective engagement in the children’s play by the adults in this

setting can be linked to the poor levels of the practitioner’s theoretical knowledge and practical skills in

understanding the importance of play and how to create environments in which experiences of play can be

shared. The photographs clearly illustrate how the practitioners in this study displayed low levels of theoretical

understanding and practical skills when resourcing and preparing the places in which they expected children to

play. The report conducted by Wolstenholme, et al (2010) on behalf of the DFE highlighted how “open ended”

play environments resourced by practitioners with accessible, flexible and maniplable resources such as

bricks, ropes, guttering, planks, building blocks, collections of tape, scissors and paper supported a wide range

of play themes and provided distinctive opportunities for promotion of high quality, creative learning

experiences, derived from children’s autonomously created play themes. While this school has the range of

resources and open spaces identified in the report findings of Wolstenholme, et al (2010) as effective in

promoting innovative thinking and sustained engagement in play, these resources often remain in closed

sheds, under large blankets , poorly presented or in places not accessible to the children. The DCSF (2007)

publication, “Confident, capable and creative: supporting boys’ achievements” further highlighted the

importance of practitioners understanding the theoretical and practical implications of preparing an

environment for effective play, in this case study it was highlighted how two nurseries maximised the full

learning potential of their outdoor spaces to develop the opportunity to sustain the children’s imaginative

thought processes. This ethnography has identified that the practitioners in this early year’s team do not

display these attributes and skills.

While it was not an intentionally part of this studies methods, to further triangulate and validate this

discussion, the practitioners and teachers supporting this cohort of children were asked to rate their “play

71

0940649

practice” against a checklist of skills identified by Sylva et al (2003) and Blatchford (2004). This list identifies

the critical skills a practitioner needs to display when looking to create interactions with children that are vital

to the children’s intellectual development and the establishment of “sustained shared thinking” (Blatchford,

2004)

This data can be viewed in this ethnography’s research journal, (pg. 55 – 57.) To remain faithful to this studies

methodology, this questionnaire approach to data collection was conducted as part of one of the naturally

occurring team reviews. This form of data collection was used to eliminate the effect of personal interaction

with the researcher, reducing the impact of researcher presence or the researchers’ opportunity to

inadvertently lead a group discussion effecting how the group may naturally rate their own skills. This system

provided a quick method to triangulate the observed data and analysed finding in a way that reduced

“Interpersonal Factors” (Denscombe, 2007). This method further adhered to the socialist constructivist

viewpoint adopted in this study by the way in which it looked to validate a finding by constructing knowledge

with the community engaged in the ethnography.

The data collected from this review session identified that one third, or more, of the group felt they needed

developmental support in the areas of: respecting the children’s own decisions and choices, inviting the

children to elaborate on their own ideas, encouraging further thinking, offering alternative viewpoints,

reciprocating ideas, asking open-ended questions and the modeling of thinking. This data significantly

indicated that of the fourteen areas identified by Blatchford (2004) as essential skills that practitioners need to

understand and consistently display in their practice to support effective interactions with children in early

years environments, this early years team communicated that they need support in developing their practice

across seven, half, of the key areas. Most notably, seven of the nine practitioners recorded that they only

sometimes, or don’t not always respect the children’s own decisions and choices, placing into context the data

recorded in March 2012 that 22% of the children in the school shared the opinion that the adults don’t always

listen to them.

While it is acknowledged that questionnaires offer little opportunity for the researcher to check the

truthfulness of the answers given (Denscombe, 2007) these results support the validation of the discussion on

the finding that an identified lack of “play practice” skills and theoretical and understanding of the value of

play present barriers to practitioners engaging in developing shared and sustained moments of play with the

72

0940649

children in this reception cohort. This finding significantly identifies a need within the school for the

professional development of the early year’s team to refocus on developing both the practical skills and

theoretical knowledge associated with sharing and sustaining children’s play. This is important as Howard’s

(2010) research discovered that while one third of the practitioners engaged in this study received no training

in play at all, the levels of barriers to play practice reported reduced with increasing levels of theoretical

knowledge.

73

0940649

Chapter Five.

5. Conclusion.

5.1 A summary of the work undertaken in this ethnographic study.

This ethnography observed how the children in one reception aged year group, in a sub urban London school,

used fantasy violence in their play and the barriers that prevented adults in this setting from engaging in the

children’s play. This ethnography was conducted over eleven months from September 2011 to July 2012. The

researcher adopted the role of a full participant due to the advantage of already being engaged in the

everyday lives of the children. This analytical study, conducted through a social constructivist world view,

remained truthful to the children and adults participating in this ethnographic field.

5.2 A discussion of the research questions in relation to the analysis of the observed data collected in the

ethnography.

The research questions:

1. How do the children in the reception cohort of a sub urban London school use fantasy violence in their play?

2. What are the barriers that stop the adult practitioners working in this early year’s team from engaging with the children

in their autonomously selected play choices?

This ethnography observed how the socio-dramatic quality of fantasy violence play supported the children’s

cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional development. This ethnography identified how adult engagement in

fantasy violence play supported children in their construction of new learning dilemmas and challenges,

extended their language performance and motivated sustained engagement and competence in their learning

activity. These findings extend the discussions outlined in chapter two by reflecting discussions shared in the

research literature of Smilansky and Shefatya 1990; Wood 2004; Manning-Morton and Thorp 2003; Parker-

Rees 2004; and Edington 2004.

It is accepted that this study is limited in its generalisability. Nevertheless, this ethnography’s findings can be

connected to the global research literature and learning theories of, amongst others: Smilansky (1968); Kooij

74

0940649

and Posthumus Meyjes (1986); Babic (2000); Pelligini and Smith (1988); Feiersinger et. al, (2008); Lindon

(2001); Hendrick (1996); Miller and Almon (2009); Tarman and Tarman (2011); Fordham and Anderson (1992)

and Maxim (1997). This ethnography observed how the children in this reception cohort used fantasy violence

play to create new combinations of experiences, develop their selective and intellectual disciplines, heightened

their concentration, enhance their self awareness and self control, develop their understanding of self

discipline within the role context, develop the acquisition of flexibility and empathy towards others, develop

an intrinsic set of standards, develop their acquisition of a sense of creativity and capacity to control and

extend personal responses, develop cooperative skills in make believe games, become aware of the potential

that their environment provides for planning and evolving play, increase their sensitivities to accepting

alternative role possibilities, increase their capacity for the development of abstract thought and increase their

abilities in extending their play after having a possible alternative development modelled to them by an

engaged adult.

It would be wrong to suggest that all the findings related to how the children in this reception cohort use

fantasy violence play to support their learning were experienced by every child observed. It would also be

incorrect to discuss that children not choosing to engage in fantasy violence play fail to have all these areas of

learning available to them. However, fantasy violence play provided for these children an opportunity to gain

access to these identified elements and values. Peters and Sherratt (2002) observe that the values identified in

such play presents educators with something of a paradox. Peters and Sherratt (2002) argue that while

cognitive and linguistic growth is enhanced by this fantasy and socio-dramatic based play, the very fact of this

cognitive development will mean that children have less need of fantasy play. Peters and Sherratt (2002)

literature discusses the idea that the increasing influence the child actually has on the world, coupled with the

decreased need to test out and explore family roles and the development of skills which enable the child to

explore immediate horizons, means they have less cause to explore these elements through fantasy play.

However, this view ignores the consideration that educators need to move children beyond these “immediate

horizons” so that they can begin to look at the greater complexities of life. For this to happen, they need to be

challenged by an adult engaging in their autonomously created play (Moyles, 2005).

75

0940649

Throughout this ethnography it was observed how practitioners and teachers were reluctant to engage in the

children’s autonomously created play and on many occasions displayed a zero tolerance approach to accepting

forms of fantasy violence play, especially play created by the boys. It was also observed how the children’s play

was often abruptly stopped before the children had the opportunity to develop the play to meet its intended

purpose or share its value (Bettelheim, 1987). This ethnography identified four key barriers preventing adults

from engaging in the children’s play: 1) A concern with conducting “Stressful Surveillance” to ensure the

children played safely 2) Poor practical play skills 3) A lack of theoretical knowledge on the value of play and 4)

A self adopted prioritization towards the creation of adult directed learning experiences through which the

documenting of attainment and progress in each child’s foundation stage profile could take place. Research

literature reviewed in this study further suggests that the reluctance of adults to engage in children’s play

themselves stems from the fact that adults find it increasingly difficult to find, “Spielraum” (Bettelheim, 1987)

the creation of an actual physical space, and state of mind, in which children and adults alike have the freedom

to innovate and explore their thoughts. This view is also reflected in the literature of, amongst others, Miller

and Almon(2009); Pellegrini and Smith (2008); Csikzentmihalya (1996); and Paley (1988).

5.3 Recommendations for the improvement of the schools practice.

5.3.1 The school needs to develop the professional skills of it early years practitioners so that within their

“play practice”, each adult is able to engage, enrich and deepen the fantasy play of all children.

This ethnography observed a need for the school to support its practitioners and teachers in improving their

theoretical knowledge and practical skills relating to the specific areas of: respecting the children’s own

decisions and choices, inviting the children to elaborate on their own ideas, encouraging further thinking,

offering alternative viewpoints, reciprocating ideas, asking open-ended questions and the modeling of

thinking. This professional development of the teams practice must be developed in a way that allows the

practitioners and teachers an opportunity to experience first hand the inherent value of engaging and

sustaining children’s autonomously created play. This is a view shared by Howard (2010);Johnson

(1994);McMullen and Alat (2002); Cohen (2006); Cheng and Stimpson(2004); Mcinnes et al (2009); Wood and

Attfield (2005) and Blatchford (2004). This is important as identified by Howard (2010) the more theoretical

76

0940649

knowledge and practical experience a practitioner possesses; the more they are inclined to engage in

children’s play.

The literature of Hutt et al (1989); Jarvis (2007;2010) and Moyles (2005) indicates that what is significant to

children’s development is the active intervention of the adults in their fantasy play. By becoming part of

children’s autonomously created fantasy play, regardless of its theme, adults can capitalise upon the

significant learning potential offered by this way of working with children. As Moyles (2005) observes, “One of

the most valuable contributions that adults can make to such fantasy play is their own involvement” (Moyles,

2005 pg 118). This literature observes how the selective intervention and engagement in children’s play made

by the observing adult can make the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and corresponding

learning more precise.

Increased adult engagement in play must not remove the ownership of the play away from the children

creating the episodes. This is a view shared in the literature of Gartrell (1995); Edwards (1993); Fordham and

Anderson (1992); Babic (2000) and Maxim (1997). As Moyles (2005) observes, “Essentially the play and action

must be that of the child. Their ideas must be used. The words spoken must be their words expressing their

thoughts” (Moyles, 2005, pg 120) In chapter two it was noted how in Jarvis’s (2007) ethnographical study

where adults intervened in the children’s play narratives they tended to show a misunderstanding of the day

to day conventions of the games, and as a result completely disrupted the rule systems established by the

children. This thesis therefore recommends that this early year team receives support from the school to

develop their professional skills in such a way that each adult is more able to enrich and deepen the play by

opening up new learning areas for children without significantly reducing the children’s ownership, a strategy

Neelands (1984) defines as the, “Subtle tongue” of the teacher.

5.3.2 The school needs to support practitioners and teachers by providing time for them to use their

developing theoretical knowledge on the value of play, improve the quality of the play environments they

create and develop their own play practice.

The school should re design the use of non contact time previously set aside for practitioners to update

children’s Foundation Stage Profile records as time in which these practitioners can develop their theoretical

77

0940649

knowledge on the value of play, improve the quality of the play environments they create and engage in

weekly practical play sessions with the children in their classes, sessions through which the inherent value of

this professional development can be realised. The evidencing of the profiles was identified in this study as a

consistent barrier to adult engagement in the children’s play, as these recorded statements illustrate:

“You can’t play like you do with them on Wednesday’s … we need to evidence what their doing for our profiles.”

“I try to play with the children, but I just feel like I am chasing my tail...trying to collect evidence for my profile children, keep

them safe and share their learning targets… I would love to get back and play with them.”

The new Early Years Foundation Stage Profile which will be introduced into schools from September 2012 has

been significantly slimmed down. Based on new Early Learning Goals it has been reduced from 69 statements

to 17. With the significant sliming down of this profile and a move towards more summative approaches to the

recording of progress, this barrier to engagement in play caused by a the seemingly continuous evidencing of

the children’s learning should effectively be removed. It is acknowledged that this maybe an over simplistic

view, as pressures, identified by Stevenson(2011); Elkind (2008); Wood and Attfield (2005) and Blatchford

(1992), relating to the evidencing of attainment and progress will still exist.

The schools senior leadership team has proposed a change to remove the protected non contact time that the

school provides for practitioners. This thesis recommends that this protected time for practitioners should be

re designed as time in which these practitioners can develop their theoretical knowledge on the value of play

and the quality of the environments they design by receiving short, regular theoretical and practical inputs

sessions designed by play advocates within the school. This protected time provides a space within the weekly

schedule of the practitioners in which they can develop their “Spielraum” (Bettelheim, 1987). It provides a

protected weekly time allocation away from potential barriers to the engagement in play, a space in which

children and adults alike will have the room to innovate and explore their thoughts. This recommendation is

supported by the literature of Bettelheim(1987); Moyles (2005); Miller and Almon(2009); Pellegrini and

Smith(2008); Csikzentmihalya (1996) and Paley (1988).

78

0940649

5.3.3 To overcome the barrier to engaging in children’s play presented by “Stressful Surveillance,” (Jarvis,

2007) the schools senior leaders need to ensure that practitioners adhere to the adult: child ratio’s assigned

to the reception and nursery garden spaces.

Low adult: child ratio’s in playground or play space supervision results in the focus of the adults being strongly

directed towards the negative aspects of children’s play, this view is shared by Jarvis (2007) and Bishop and

Curtis (2001). To remove this barrier to practitioners engaging in children’s play, senior leaders in the school

must monitor team practice to ensure the correct adult: child ratios are being observed in all learning

environments.

5.3.4 The school needs to collectively review its position with regards to the seemingly self adopted zero

tolerance approach displayed by members of staff to the fantasy violence themed socio dramatic play of the

boys.

To overcome clichés and prejudices displayed by adults to the play choices of both the girls and boys, this

study shares the recommendation discussed in the DCSF (2007) publication, “Confident, capable and creative:

supporting boys’ achievements” in that the school needs to ensure that:

1. Whole staff teams agree on a similar approach to valuing, respecting and working with boys in their play choices.

2. Practitioners need to be aware of our own responses to boys when their play seems to be about fighting and power

3. (The School) needs to begin implementing changes which some staff may find contentious so that boys have access to a

balanced range of experiences.”

(DCSF, 2007, pg 18)

5.3.5 A Professional Learning Community should be created which challenges the existing play cultures of

the adults in school, with the intention of creating a new shared culture towards play and a shared

understanding of the need for playful practitioners.

(This recommendation has already been approved by the schools senior leadership team and governing body.)

79

0940649

In Chapter Three it was discussed that this study would not adopt a “Pragmatic philosophy” (Cresswell, 2009),

it would not be used to enforce a change to practice which would see practitioners more engaged in the

children’s challenging play choices. However, as a result of this study’s sustained dialogue, a change in the

practice of some adults occurred. This recommendation is not about enforcing change, but about creating a

community that can continue the dialogue developed through this ethnography.

A review alone on the schools position with regards to the self adopted zero tolerance approach displayed by

members of staff to the fantasy violence/ socio dramatic play of the boys, will not be enough to challenge the

thinking of those practitioners identified in this ethnography who fail to see any value in the children’s fantasy

violence play. This view is shared by the literature of James and Connolly (2000) and Fullan (1993) who identify

a key barrier to change being the challenging of adults existing and traditional cultures in a school with the

intention of creating a new one.

This ethnography, supported by the literature of Howard (2010) and Jarvis (2007) identified how for

practitioners engaging directly in children’s autonomously created play and in theoretical learning on play, the

inherent value of these actions caused a change in their practice. (This is evidenced by the photographs and

comments recorded in the research journal, pages 64-70). This thesis therefore recommends that a

Professional Learning Community is created in this school through which the adults observing the inherent

value of engaging in children’s play choices, including fantasy violence themed play, can communicate a clear

understanding of theoretical learning and personal belief in its worth.

A Professional Learning Community will have the ability to facilitate change, without change being enforced.

Day et al (2000) observes how a Professional Learning Community provides a structure for learning change

through which, “Revolutionary Change” (Day et al, 2000), change that challenges existing school cultures, can

be developed. This view is supported by Taylor (2011) who observes how the development of an effective

learning community empowers the school community to share and assist each member of the group in dealing

with resistance to change.

A Professional Learning Community could create a common language regarding the importance of challenging

a zero tolerance to certain children’s play choices and the need for playful practitioners in this school. The

research literature of Greene (1995) and Newman and Wehlage (1995) in Amato (2008) identifies how such a

80

0940649

community for learning could challenge adults to look beyond the familiar, in this case to move past the

tensions that underline the self adopted zero tolerance approach to fantasy violence play and move towards

an understanding of what we can do to enhance practice by becoming more engaged in the children’s

autonomously created play narratives. The creation of a Professional Learning Community will nurture a close

cooperation and sharing of responsibility for the children’s learning between staff and an increased

understanding of the children’s needs will lead to practice being amended by the learning communities

collaboration and deeper understanding of how the children use fantasy violence play to support their learning

and development. The creation of a Professional Learning Community to achieve this has the potential, as

observed by Day et al, (2000), to establish within the school the right kind of climate to enable the change to

be accepted, this view is shared by Bolam et al. (2005) in Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan and Hopkins (2010).

The schools senior leadership team and governing body have both already agreed to this recommendation and

the establishment of a Professional Learning Community has been officially identified within the schools key

actions for improvement in 2012/2013. This Community will study how teachers can develop their professional

skills to improve within our school:

1. A greater responsiveness to the children’s own interests

2. The frequency of times adults play with children

3. The value of play

4. The frequency that teachers listen to children

5. The relationship between children and adults.

(The Schools Key actions for improvements in 2012/2013)

The schools senior leadership team and governing body recognized the potential in creating, “A community of

reflective practitioners who together, are extending the knowledge and understanding of children’s learning

processes.” (Broadhead, 2006, pg. 202)

81

0940649

5.3.6 The knowledge discovered through this ethnography places its researcher in a position in which they

could ethically develop a further action research project which explores the impact of fantasy violence play

on children’s self agency.

In defining the aims of effective action research for class based teachers, Waters-Adams (2006) outlines that:

“Perhaps the most important aspect of action research is that the process enhances teachers’ professional development

through the fostering of their capability as professional knowledge makers, rather than simply as professional knowledge

users. In an age of centralisation and the proliferation of national guidelines and strategies, action research can help

teachers feel in control of their own professional situation.”(Waters-Adams, 2006,)

This ethnography and its grounded analysis of both observed data and reviewed literature suggests that

fantasy violence play supports children in their ability to overcome their perceived fears, to develop their self

agency. This finding, constructed from observations and dialogues with all the fundamental stakeholders in

the schools community places the researcher in a position from which they could continue to extend their

knowledge of educational research methods and methodology by constructing a small scale action research

project that builds further knowledge around the connection observed between fantasy violence play and

children’s self agency. This action research project should be designed as an alternative approach to

supporting the children in overcoming their perceived fears about the school, an issue discussed in chapter

one.

5.4 Conclusion

In discussing ethnographic practices, Hey (1997) identifies how, “Research is invariably accomplished by an

uneven struggle against the messy complexities of life.” (Hey, 1997, pg. 45). Throughout this ethnography

tensions have existed between the researchers, “Twin concerns with naturalism and reflexivity” (Denscombe,

2005, pg73). Tensions have also existed between the roles of being a researcher and a classed based teacher

within the school. The role of being a teacher in this school, involved in early years education for over

thirteen’s years, provided the researcher with the knowledge needed to present the grounded analysis of the

observed data with a sense of authority and expertise. However, developing this research project from the

position of a class based teacher presented the researcher with many challenges, amongst them the ability to

82

0940649

create a distance from the field of study and the constant need to reflect on both “Reflexivity” and

“Paternalism” (Lincon and Williams, 1988) to ensure that the analysis was grounded and did not show bias

towards the voice of the children.

While it is acknowledged this ethnography relates directly to the children in the reception cohort of this sub

urban school, it can be argued that the messages identified in this ethnography also relate to both national and

international concerns over the value of children’s play in schools. The increase in structured forms of learning

and the reluctance of practitioners to engage in children’s play promotes concerns relating to the segregation

of children from adults in school. The literature of Elkind (2008); Wood and Attfield (2005) and Blatchford

(1992) identifies this as a national issue, the literature of Zeiher (2003) in Christensen and O’Brien (2003);

Kamil, Langer,and Shanahan (1985); Nurani (2008); Goldstein(2008); Bresler(1996); Boruch(1999); and Ariès

(1973) identifies this an issue relevant for discussion across global educational settings.

This ethnography observed how fantasy violence play is valued highly by the children who create it;” It is their

self actualisation, a holistic exploration of who and what they are and know and of who and what they might

become.” (Broadhead, 2006, pg.89.) It is intended that this study will create a new learning community

through which a more “critical pedagogy of play” (Rogers and Evans, 2007) can be adopted. One which

encourages practitioners not only to see and appreciate the inherent value of the children’s own

autonomously created pieces of play, but also engage in it, increasing the moments in the school when

children announce, “Its alright, they let us play” (Arif)

83

0940649

6. Reference List.

Bell, J. (2005, pages 7 to 27) Doing your Research Project Fourth Edition. Open University Press

Bettelheim, B (1987, pages 35 - 46) The Importance of Play. The Play Years: Psychosocial Development.

Bishop, J. And Curtis, M. (2001) Play today in the primary school playground. Buckingham, Open University

Press.

Blurton Jones, N. (1967) An ethological study of some aspects of social behaviour of children, in

Bolton,G (1979) Towards a Theory of Drama in Education. London: Longman.

Bolam et al. (2005) in Hargreaves,A. Ann Lieberman, A., Fullan,. M, Hopkins. D (2010) Second International

Handbook of Educational Change, Volume 2. Springer International Handbooks on Education.

Bransford, J. et al. (2000)How People Learn, Brain, Mind, Experience and School. National Academy Press

Bredekamp,S. and Copple,C. (1996) Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Revised

edition. Washington. DC: NAEYC.

Broadhead.P (2006) Developing an understanding of young children’s learning through play: the place of

observation, interaction and reflection. British Educational Journal. Vol.32 Routledge.

Bronfenbrenner, U. and Ceci, S. J. (1994) Nature–nurture reconceptualised in developmental perspective: a bio-

ecological model. Psychological Review, pg.107, pg.568–586.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Harvard

University Press.

Bruce.T (2006) Early Childhood: A guide for students. Sage Publications.

84

0940649

Bruner, J. (1996) The culture of education.Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J.S (1972) Functions of play, in Bruner et al (1976) On Knowing: Essays for the left hand. Second edition.

New York: Athenum.

Bryan C. Taylor Thomas R. and Lindlof (2011) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Sage

Publications.inc.

Carlsson-Paige, N. and Levin, D, E. (1990). Who’s calling the shots? How to respond effectively to children’s

fascination with war play and war toys. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.

Carr, D. (2002) Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and

Teaching. Routledge.

Carspecken,P (1996) Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide

(Critical Social Thought) Routledge.

Compton-Lilly, C (2006) Identity, childhood culture, and literacy learning: A case study. Journal of Early

Childhood Literacy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 57-76

Christensen, P. and James, A. (2002). Childhood diversity and commonality: Some methodological insights. In

Research with children. Perspectives and practices, Edited by: Christensen, P. and James, A. 160–78. New York:

Routledge Falmer.

Clifford , J. (1992) . On ethnographic authority. In The emergence of postmodern anthropology. C. Reynoso

(1992), Barcelona : Gedisa .

Cohen,L., Manion,L. and Morrison,K (2000) Research Methods in education. London Routledge Farmer.

Cox R.C, West W.L.(1986) Fundamentals of research for health professionals, 2nd ed. Ramsco Pub. Co.

Creswell, J. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. London: Sage.

Csikszentmihalya, M. (1996) Creativity flow and the psychology of discovery and intervention. New York:

Gardner Press.

85

0940649

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield,M., Tolley, H. and Beresford, J. (2000) Leading Schools in Times of Change.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

DCSF (2007) Confident, capable and creative, supporting boys achievements. Guidance for practitioners in the

Early Years Foundation Stage. DCSF Publications.

Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Third Edition. Open

University Press, UK.

DFES (2002) Birth to Three matters: A framework to support children in their earliest years. London DFES.

DFES/QCA (2003) Foundation Stage Profile Handbook. London: DFES/QCA

Dunn.J, and Hudges.C, (2001) “I Got Some Swords and You’re Dead!” Violent Fantasy, Anti Social Behaviour,

Friendship, and Moral Sensibility in Young Children. Child Development, March/April, Volume 72, Number 2,

Pages 491-505.

Edgington,M. (2004) The Foundation Stage Teacher in Action-Teaching 3-4-and 5-years olds. London: Paul

Chapman.

Edwards.C H (1993) Classroom management and discipline. New York: Macmillian

Erikson,E (1950) Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Feiersinger, E. et al, 2008. 'Fuji Kindergarten, Tachikawa, Tokyo', Detail [Special Issue: Kindergarten] , v.48, n.3,

March, p.187-199.

Ferreira , M. (2004) We like to play with other children. Social relationships between children in a kindergarten.

Porto, , Portugal : Edições Afrontamento .

Fetterman, D.M. (1998) Ethnography: Step by Step. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Fielding, M. (2001) Taking education really seriously. In Taking education really seriously: four years' hard

labour, ed. Michael Fielding, 1-14. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

86

0940649

Fordham,A. E and Anderson. W.W (1992) Play, risk taking and the emergence of literacy. In V.J Dimidjian (ED.)

Plays place in public education for young children. Washington.DC: NEA

Formberg, D.P (1995) The full-day kindergarden: Planning and practising a dynamic themes curriculum. New

York: Teacher College.

Freud,S. (1961) Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-analysis.

Friere.P (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International Publishing group

Galda. L and A. D. Pellegrini (eds.) (1985), Play, language, and stories: The development of children's literate

behavior. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex,

Gall, J.P. et al. (2005). Applying Educational Research. Boston: Pearson.

Garrick,R, Bath,C, Dunn,K, Maconochie,H, Willis,B, and Wolstenholme,C. (2010) Children’s experiences of the

Early Years Foundation Stage. DFE.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Greene. M (1995) Releasing the imagination: essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Grossman, S. (2008) Offering children choices: Encouraging Autonomy and Learning while minimizing conflicts.

Excellence Learning Corporation.

Grover, S. (2004). Why won't they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children participating in social

research. Childhood, 11(1): 81–93. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

Gudmunsdottir, (1996) in Sheḳedi A (2005) Multiple Case Narrative: A Qualitative Approach to Studying

Multiple Populations.

Gueron, J. (1999). Can we make education policy on the basis of evidence? What constitutes high quality

education research and how can it be incorporated into policymaking? (Transcript of a Brookings Press Forum,

87

0940649

Washington, DC, December 8, 1999). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Guha, M. (1988) Play in school, in G.M Blenkin and A.V Kelly (eds) Early childhood education: A developmental

Curriculum, London: Paul Chapman.

Hammersley, M and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock.

Hammersley,M (1990) What’s wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge.

Hey. V (1997) “The Company She Keeps” An Ethnography of Girls Friendship. Open University Press

Holland, P. (2002) Take the Toys from the boys? An examination of the genesis of policy and the

appropriateness of adult perspectives in the area of war, weapon and superhero play. Children’s Social and

Economic Education, Volume 4.

Holland,P. (2003) “We don’t play with guns here, war weapon and superhero play in the early years” Open

University Press, Mcgraw-Hill Education.

Holland,P. (2002) “Take the toys from the boys? An examination of the genesis of policy and the

appropriateness of adult perspectives in the area of war, weapon and superhero play” Children’s social and

Economic education, volume 14.

Howard, J. (2010) Early years practitioners perceptions of play: An exploration of theoretical understanding,

planning and involvement, confidence and barriers to practice. Educational and Child Psyclology, volume 27,

no.4 The British Psychological society.

Hutt, S.J, Tyler,S., Hutt,C. and Christopherson, H. (1989) Play, Exploration and Learning: A Natural History of the

Preschool. London: Routledge.

Isaac, M. W. (1990) Handbook in research and evaluation, 2nd ed. San Diego: Edits Pub.; 1990:189.

James, C. R. and Connolly, U. (2000) Effective Change in Schools. London: Routledge Falmer

James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (2004.) Theorizing childhood, Oxford: Polity.

88

0940649

Jarvis. P (2010) Chapter 4. “Born to Play”: The biocultural roots of rough and tumble play, and its impact upon

young children’s learning and development. In Broadhead. P, Howard,J, Wood.E (2010) Play and learning in

the early years: From research to Practice. London: Routledge.

Jarvis,P. (2007) Dangerous activities within an invisible playground: a study of emergent male football play and

teacher perceptive of outdoor free play in the early years of primary school. International journal of early Years

Education. Volume 15, No.3 October 2007. Pg 245-259.

Jones, G. (2002) Killing Monsters: Why children need fantasy, super heroes and make believe violence. Basic

Books.

James, A. 1999. “Learning to be friends: Participant observation amongst English school children (the Midlands,

England)”. In Being there. Fieldwork in anthropology , Edited by: Watson, C.W. 98–120. London: Pluto Press.

Kaestle, C.F., Damon-Moore, L.C., Stedman, K., Tinsley, K., and Trollinger, W.V., Jr. (1991). Literacy in the

United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kamil, M.L., Langer, J.A., & Shanahan, T. (1985). Understanding research in reading and writing. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Katch (2002), "Under Deadman's Skin: Discovering the Meaning of Children's Violent Play" Beacon Press.

Lankser, C. and Knobel. (2004) Teacher Research: From Design to implementation. Chapter 11. Open University

Press, UK.

LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, CA:

AltaMira.

Lindon, J. (2001). Understanding children’s play(3rd ed.). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

Manning, K. and Sharp, A. (1977) Structuring play in the Early Years at School, Cardiff: Ward Lock Educational.

89

0940649

Manning-Morton, J. and Thorp,M. (2003) Key Times for Play. Maidenhead:Open University Press.

Maxim, G.W (1997) The very young: Developmental education for the early years. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River,

NJ Merrill/Prentice Hall.

McInnes, K., Howard, J., Miles, G.E. and Crowley, K. (2009). Behavioural differences exhibited by children when

practising a task under formal and playful conditions. Educational & Child Psychology, 26(2), 31–39.

Miles, M.B, and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Ed., p. 10-12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miles, M.B, and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE

Milstein. D (2010) Children as co-researchers in anthropological narratives in education. Routledge. London

Morrison. G,S. (1997) Fundamentals of early childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Moss, Pand Petrie. P(2002) From children's services to children's spaces: public policy, children and childhood,

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Neelands, J. (1984) Making Sense of Drama. London: Heinemann.

Nespor, J. (1997) Tangled up in school. Politics, space, bodies, and signs in the educational process , Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Newman and Wehlage, (1995) in Amato, E.A. (2008) The Challenges of a Change in Practice: The Story of an

Experienced Principal's Journey Through the Change Process at a Struggling Urban Elementary School.

ProQuest.

Palaiologou. J (2010) Child Observation for the Early Years. Learning Matters Limited, 2012

Paley. V (1984) Boys & girls : Superheroes in the doll corner. Chicago : University of Chicago Press,

Paley. V (1988) “Bad guys don’t have birthdays. Fantasy play at four” The University of Chicago Press.

Paley. V (2004) A Child’s Work: the importance of fantasy play. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

90

0940649

Parker-Rees, R (2004) Moving, playing and learning: Children’s active exploration of their world, in J.Willan, R.

Parker-Rees and J. Savage, Early Childhood Studies. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Pascal, C and Bertram, A. (1995) Evaluating and Developing Quality in Early Childhood settings: A Professional

Development Programme, Worcester: Amber Publishing Co. Ltd.

Pehrsson. D. E and Pehrsson R. S (2007) Language fantasy approach: A therapeutic intervention by creating

myths with children. Journal of Poetry Therapy (March 2007), Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 41_49

Pellegrini.A. and Smith.K, (1988) Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play

Child development, page 68. London: Routledge

Phillips.D and Burbules. N (2000) Postpositivism and Educational Research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Potter,J and Wetherell,M. (1994) Analysing Discourse, in A.Bryman and R.G. Burgess (eds) Analysing

Qualitative Data. London: Routledge.

Punch, K.F (1998) Introduction to social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage.

Qvortrup, J. 1994. “Childhood matters: An introduction”. In Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and

politics, Edited by: Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. and Wintersberger, H. 1–23. Aldershot: Avebury Press.

Ridley. D (2008) The Literature Review: A step by step guide for students. SAGE Publications.

Sheḳedi A. (1996) Studies in Art Education, Vol. 37, No. 3. pp. 133-144 Blackwell

Singer, D and Singer,J (1990) The house of make believe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1999) ‘Early Childhood Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Research’ in P. Mortimore (Ed)

Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning, pp. 20-45 London: Paul Chapman.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British Educational

Research Journal, 30(5), 713–730.

91

0940649

Stevenson, H. (2011) Coalition Education Policy: Thatcherism’s Long Shadow. Volume 53. Number 2. Forum

Smilansky, S. (1968) The Effects of Socio Dramatic Play on Disadvantaged Pre school Children. New York: Wiley.

Smilansky,S. and Shefatya, L. (1990) Facilitating Play: A Medium for Promoting Cognitive, Socio cultural and

Academic Development in Young Children. Gaithersburg, MD: Psychsocial and Educational Publications.

Smith, P.K (2005) Play: types and functions in human development, in B. Ellis and D. Bjorklund (eds) Origins of

the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Child Development. New York: Guilford Press.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford,I., Taggart,B. and Elliot,K. (2003) The effective provision of

preschool education (EPPE) Project: Findings from the preschool period. London: Institute of Education.

Power G.T. (2000). Play and exploration in children and animals. Hillsdale NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Thompson, M. (2000) "Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys" (Ballantine Books, 2000),

Thorne, B. (1993) Gender play girls and boys in school. NJ: Rudgers University Press.

Toren, C. 1993. Making history: The significance of childhood cognition for a comparative anthropology of

mind. Man, New Series , 28(3): 461–78.

Tuckman, B.W. 1999. Conducting Educational Research. Orlando: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).

Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Waldorff, G. (2008) “The nature of educational ethnography”. In Walford. G (2008) How to do educational

ethnography , 1–15. London: The Tufnell Press.

Ward, L. (2005) Toddler curriculum criticised by European education expert. The Guardian,

November 15.

92

0940649

Watson.M and Y. Peng. (1992). The relation between toy gun play and children's aggressive behavior. Early

Education & Development, 3 370-389.

Whyte. W (1943) Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. University of Chicago Press

Wiersma, W. (1986) Research Methods in Education: An Introduction.Newton: Allyn and Bacon.

Willis. P (1978) “Learning To Labour” How working class kids get working class jobs. Gower Publishing

Company Limited.

Wilson, E. (2008) School based research: A guide for education students. Sage, London.

Wood, E. (2004) Developing a pedagogy of play, in A. Anning, J. Cullen, and M. Wood, L and Attfield,J. (1996)

Play, Learning and The Early Childhood Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman.

Wood, E. and Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (2nd ed.). London:Paul

Chapman Publishing. 102

Woods, P. (2006) Successful writing for qualitative researchers, second edition. London: Routledge.

Zeiher,H. (2003) “Shaping daily lives in urban environments”, in Christensen,P and O’Brien, M (eds) (2003)

Children in the City. London: Routledge Falmer.

Websites:

Ariès , P. (1973) . L'enfant et la vie familiale sous l'Ancien Régime [Centuries of childhood] . Paris : Editions du

Seuil . Available at: http://www.brook.edu/comm/transcripts/19991208.htm Accessed: 12/07/2012

BERA (2003). Early Years research: Pedagogy, curriculum and adult roles, training and professionalism. Journal.

Available at: :www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/ BERAEarlyYearsReview accessed: 31/05/11

Boruch, R. (1999). Can we make education policy on the basis of evidence? What constitutes high quality

education research and how can it be incorporated into policymaking?(transcript of a Brookings Press Forum,

93

0940649

Washington, DC, December 8, 1999). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Available

at: http://www.brook.edu/comm/transcripts/19991208.htm accessed: 10/07/2012

Bresler. L (1996) Ethical Issues in the Conduct and Communication of Ethnographic Classroom Research.

Available at: http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/liora/sub_directory/pdf/Ethical%20Issues.pdf accessed:

19/06/2012

Compton-Lilly ( 2006) Identity, childhood culture, and literacy learning: A case study

Available at: http://ecl.sagepub.com/content/6/1/57.short accessed: 01/08/2012

Department of Statistics, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon (2009) Strategies used to

promote qualitative research validity, Available at: http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~brian/701/notes/paper-

structure.pdf accessed 31/07/2012

Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, (2004) Available at: www.bera.ac.uk. Accessed: 09/07/2012

Fullan. M (1993) Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents. Available at:

http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_98-99/03_93.htm Accessed: 20/08/2012

Goldstein J (2008) “Understanding aggressive play” Available at:

http://www.btha.co.uk/dynamic/documents/ntcleaflets/Understanding%20Aggressive%20Play.pdf Accessed:

07/07/2011

Leadbetter, C. (2010) Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x8tA4RBog Accessed: 30/07/2011

Logue. (2008) Bring it: Boys may benefit from aggressive play. Available at

:www.today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38882665/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/ Accessed 23/06/2012

Maddux, Johnson, and Willis (1997) four principles applied in any Vygotskian classroom, in "Educational

Computing: Learning with Tomorrow's Technologies" Available at: https://viking.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/et-

it/4vygo.htm Accessed: 08/06/2012

94

0940649

Miller. E and Almon. J (2009) Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. Available at:

www.alliance for childhood.org. Accessed: 02/04/2012

Nurani (2008) A Critical Review of Ethnographic Approach. Available at: http://www.fsrd.itb.ac.id/wp-

content/uploads/5%20Lusi%20Ethnography%20Approach.pdf Accessed: 10/07/2012

Patten, P. (2000). Playing with Guns, War Play, and Superheroes: What’s the Big Deal? Available at:

http://npin.org/ pnews/2000/pnew500/int500c.html assessed: 7/06/2012

Rich.D (2002) “Catching children’s stories” Early Years Education journal. Spring edition. Available at:

www.richlearningopportunities.co.uk, Accessesd: 27/02/2012.

Rich.D (2003) “Bang, Bang! Gun play and why children need it” Early Years Education journal. Spring edition.

Available at: www.richlearningopportunities.co.uk, Accessesd: 27/02/2012.

Rogers.S, and Evans,J. (2007) Rethinking role play in the reception class. Available at:

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10/80/00131880701369677 Accessed on 20/08/2012

Smith, P and Pellegrini. A (2008) Learning through play. Encyclopaedia on early childhood development

Available at: www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Smith-PellegriniANGxp.pdf

Accessed: 12/03/2012

Tarman, B. and Tarman, I. (2011) Teachers Involvement in Children’s Play and Social interaction. Available at:

Elementary Education online: http//ilkogretim-online.org.tr Accessed: 20/08/2012

Kamil, Langer, and Shanahan, (1985) Understanding Research in Reading and Writing and LeCompte and

Schensul (1999) Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research. Available at:

http://www.readingonline.org/articles/Purcell-gates/

www.monocle.com/sections/design/web-Articles/fuji-kindergarten Accessed: 1/02/2008

95