factors reflecting cognitive style in young children's play

FACTORS REFLECTING COGNITIVE STYLE IN YOUNG

CHILDREN’S PLAY

OLIVIA N. SARACHO

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify those factors underlying the play of field-dependent and field-independent preschoolchildren. The sample consisted of 1276 three-, four-, and five-year-old children enrolled in early childhood programs, The Articulation of the Body Concept (ABC) Scale was used to assess the children’s cognitive style while the Play Rating Scale was used to assess young children’s behaviors in four different types of play (physical, block, manipulative, and dramatic). Factoranalysis indicated two dimensionsof play behaviors for each group of children: (1) communicating ideus through fhe use of dramatic, manipulative, and physical ucti&ies, and (2) communicating ideas in physical and block activities for field- dependent children; and (1) communicating ideas in ull,forms ofplay, and (2) engaging in block and physical play for field-independent children. These factors had strong loadings within a range of items. Practical and research implications in promoting educationalplayforfield-dependentandfield-independentchildrenwerepresented.

Peer interactions promote young children’s cognitive and social development. Through these interactions young children learn to understand the feelings of others, wait their turn, cooperate with others, share materials and experiences, and gain personal satisfaction. Most children’s peer interactions occur within play situations. These interactions reflect children’s cognitive style. This study is designed to identify the relationship between play characteristics of children and different cognitive styles.

COGNITIVE STYLE

Cognitive style describes the individuals’ stylistic behavioral characteristics that are revealed in their perceptual, social and intellectual activities. These character-

Direct all correspondenceto: Olivia N. Saracho, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Collegeof Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MO 20742.

Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 4. Number 1, 1992, pages 43-56. Copyright 0 1992 by JAI Press, lnc All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. MN: 1041-6060

44 LEARNlNG AND /NDlVlDUAL DFFERENCES VOLUME 4. NUMBER 1. ,992

istics describe the individual’s mode of understanding, thinking, remembering, judging and solving problems. The individuals’ styles are reflected in the cognitive strategies they use in a variety of situations. Messick (1984) differentiates between styles and strategies of application, “Styles imply a general orientation to task situations, while strategies are attuned to particular types of tasks and situations” (p. 62). Several dimensions of cognitive style have been examined, but the field- dependence-independence (FDI) dimension is one which has generated more research for cognitive restructuring and social behavior. FDI is a stylistic dimension which characterizes the individuals’ way of perceiving part-whole relations. Field- dependent (FD) individuals perceive parts of a field as separate from the whole, while field-independent (FI) individuals analyze the field into discrete parts. FI persons are able to disembed parts from their contexts, while FD persons encounter difficulty with this task (Kogan 1987).

In the most current theoretical formulation, Witkin and Goodenough (1981) delineate a bipolar value-neutral dimension on a continuum, along which contrast- ing modes of the individual’s performance on different cognitive tasks are characterized. Saracho and Spodek (1981) compare FD and FI individuals as follows:

FIELD-DEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS

.

. rely on the surrounding perceptual field;

experience their environment in a relatively global fashion by conforming to the effects of the prevailing field or context;

are dependent on authority;

search for facial cues in those around them as a source of information;

are strongly interested in people;

get closer to the person with whom they are interacting;

have a sensitivity to others which helps them to acquire social skills;

prefer occupations which require involvement with others.

In contrast:

FIELD-INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS

l perceive objects as separate from the field; . can abstract an item from the surrounding field and solve problems that are

presented and reorganized in different contexts;

l experience an independence from authority which leads them to depend on their own standards and values;

. are oriented towards active striving;

. appear to be cold and distant;

FACTORS REFLECTING COGNlTlVE STYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY

. are socially detached but have analytic skills; l prefer occupations that allow them to work by

45

themselves (p. 154).

The most current form of FDI theory (Witkin & Goodenough 1981) emphasizes the value-neutral quality of a cognitive style. FDI cognitive style takes the form of people vs. object orientation in young children, although the contrast may be more in the nature of task vs. social orientations. FI children are able to solve problems (often spatial in character) which require structuring or reorganization of any information which is presented, while FD children display a social sensitivity which provides them with good interpersonal relations with others. FD individuals have an a’dvantage in the social realm. They display an interpersonal orientation, i.e., they are comfortable with others and tend to seek out others (Kogan 1987).

COGNITIVE STYLE AND PLAY

Though young children’s participation in play reflects their cognitive style, few studies have examined the relationship between these two areas. Preschool FD girls usually cooperate more with their playmates in social activities while FI girls usually participate more in nonsocial activities (Coates 1972). These results are supported by Coates, Lord and Jakabovics (1975) and Steele (1981) who found that preschool FD children engaged more in social play than did FI preschool children. FD preschool children are more often socially oriented in their play, while FI preschool children are more often involved in solitary play. Saracho (1987) reports a significant interaction between the children’s cognitive style and their frequency of play behaviors. FI children seem to play more than FD children. Both FD and FI children tend to exhibit the play behaviors which characterize their cognitive style.

The study of play behaviors by Renninger and Sigel(1987) shows that three- and four-year-old children reflect a stylistic approach in their selection of strategies and processes to cognitively organize and interpret tasks. Over time, young children’s cognitive organization may indicate specific patterns which they perceive as appropriate to them, or which greatly interest them. Children consistently select an organizational pattern which, when applied to a type of task, reflects their stylistic preferences. The children’s play behaviors become consistent and deliberate. This study explores the FD and FI children’s choices and play behaviors in physical, block, manipulative and dramatic play.

METHODOLOGY

The sample consisted of 1276 three- to five-year-old children enrolled in early childhood programs (e.g., Head Start, child care, nursery school and university

LEARNING AND /ND/V/DUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1, ,992

early childhood centers) located in California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Children in these settingsranged from those of low socioeconomic status (e.g., those whose families received government aid) to those of high socioeconomic status (e.g., those whose families worked as bank president, physician, lawyer and other high-status professions).

Children used traditional toys, materials, and activities available in a progressive child development-based program. They had the opportunity to engage freely in physical, block, manipulative, and dramatic play at least one hour a day. Most children attended preschools all-day, Mondays through Fridays, during the academic year.

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

The Articulation of the Body-Concept Scale (ABC Scale, Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp 1974) was used to assess young children’s cognitive style, while the Play Rating Scale (PRS, Saracho 1984) was used to identify their play behaviors in four different educational play areas. These are described below.

The Articulation of the Body-Concept (ABC) Scale. The ABC Scale was used to assess cognitive style. Using a pencil, the subject simply draws a person on a piece of paper. Upon completion of the first drawing, the subject draws a person of the opposite sex from that of the first figure. In assessing the relationship between FDI and articulation of the body concept, a figure drawing scale restricted to the articulation issues was developed by Marlens (Witkin et al. 1974). Children who are analytic tend to have a more articulated body concept, while those who are global tend to have a less articulated body concept. The rating scale is based on a number of specific criteria, related to the observable characteristics of the figures drawn rather than to the usual projective interpretations of drawings, which are used by other measures of FDI. The observed characteristics are classified into three categories: (1) the form level of the drawings, (2) the extent of identity and sex differentiation of the figures, and (3) the level of detailing. The detailed definition of these characteristics is assessed on a five-point rating scale. Both male and female drawings are assessed at the same time in order to provide a single rating. The five- point scale determines the articulation of body concept of children from their drawings.

The Play Rating Scale (PRS, Saracho 1984) identifies young children’s play in four different play areas (physical, block, manipulative, dramatic). In physical play children engage in large actions (e.g., running, jumping or riding a tricycle) both in outdoor and indoor play. In block play young children build structures with small or large blocks. Such structures may represent abstract forms, buildings, or geographic areas. The children can integrate block accessories, such as miniature wooden or rubber people, toy cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, or traffic signs. Mate- rials such as strips of paper, plastic or rope can be used to represent streets or rivers.

In manipulative play children use small pieces of equipment, including puzzles, Cuisenare rodsand pegboards. Since most actions are contained, a dramatic quality does not exist in the play activity. In drumutic play children usually act out roles with

FACTORS REFLECTING COGNlTlVE STYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY 47

their classmates to represent their own life experiences. Young children tend to assume roles in social situations, such as those of family members or people within the community. Teachers frequently provide props that assist children to represent themes, such as home, beauty parlor, post office, restaurant, or grocery store. Children may act out these roles through props or puppets.

The PRS also indicates children’s interests and play behaviors in the different forms of educational play. Its four subscales indicate the children’s (1) frequency of play, (2) ability and creativity in communicating ideas, (3) social levels of participation, and (4) capability to follow or lead, for each play area. Inter-rater reliability for the PRS ranges from .92 to .94.

PRS scores reflect a hierarchical order from (1) never to always engages in play, (2) poor to excellent modes of creating and communicating ideas, (3) solitary play to cooperative play, and (4) always depending on others to always initiating play activities. A series of consecutive behaviors leading up to a similar intent are characterized as ordered acts for each form of play. Each form of play is coded from the use of concrete materials to the use of abstract forms of communication.

PROCEDURES

The ABC Scale was administered to the children as a group in each classroom. To validate this measure, the Preschool Embedded Figures Test (PEFT), a standard- ized test for cognitive style was individually administered to a sample of 300 children. Correlations for three to five-year-old boys and girls ranged from .85 to .92, which were significant at the .OOOl level. In addition, concurrent validity was examined by computing the differences between the means of the ABC Scale and the I’EFT. A t-test was used to analyze these differences. Comparisons between these tests showed predictable and significant differences at the .OOOl level. Reliability estimates were obtained using inter-rater reliability and test-rest method (See Table 1). Three raters were trained to independently assess the ABC Scale using its criteria until they achieved a 98% inter-rater agreement to evaluate the ABC Scale. Inter-rater reliability estimates for this sample ranged from .88 to .99 (p < .OOOl). The ratings for the first rater were used to determine the children’s cognitive style. The sample of 300 children were re-administered the ABC Scale after an

TABLE 1

Reliability Estimates for the ABC Scale

Reliability Estimates

Age n sex Test Retest Inter-rater

3 50 females .98 .99

3 50 males .99 .90

4 50 females .99 .88

4 50 males .92 .99

5 50 females .75 .99

5 50 males .99 .90

48 LEARNING AND /NDll’KJUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1.1992

interval period of a week and one half. Test-retest method for the ABC Scale ranged from .75 to .99.

During the play period, when children were permitted a choice of play activities, each child was observed over time for 30 one minute periods. Each minute of observation was divided into three 20-second intervals-15 seconds for observing and 5 seconds for recording behaviors using a prepared checklist form. Observa- tions occurred intermittently throughout the four- month period of the study and were made by one of three trained observers. The order of these observations was randomized daily. All observations were videotaped.

To estimate inter-observer reliability, 20% of the total observations were made by two of the three recorders who independently recorded the same child’s behavior. Observers 1 and 2 had an overall Kappa statistic (Hubert 1977) of .824, with a range of .713 to .907 across play categories; observers 1 and 3 had an overall Kappa statistic of .817, with a range of ,701 to .893; observers 2 and 3 had an overall Kappa statistic of .698, with a range of .610 to .806.

RESULTS

Means and standard deviations for the different play behaviors are presented in Table 2, Interrcorrelation Matrices for FD and FI children are presented in Tables 3 and 4, while the factors are displayed in Table 5.

The means (Table 2) indicate that FD children achieved higher scores in the different play behaviors. Thus, they tended to display more of the play behaviors than did FI children. To determine the relationship among the items for FD and FI children, correlations and estimates among the children’s play behaviors were computed (See Tables 2 and 3). The intercorrelations among the items should be noted. These correlations vary from near zero to .599 for FD children and close to zero to .479 for FI children. These relationships could have been predicted from the results of the factor analysis. A few of the items with high factor pattern loadings on the factor analysis also had moderate coefficients on the correlation matrix. Correlations for the different play behaviors were moderate for FD children and low for FI children. However, some patterns can be observed among the different play behaviors. The interrcorrelation matrix for FD children (Table 3) showed the following patterns:

Communication of ideas in physical play .51 Socialization in physical play .58 Leadership in physical play .57 Frequency of manipulative play .54 Communication of ideas in dramatic play

So&I purticipntion in physical play .60 Socialization in block play

Initiation of activities in physical play .56 Initiation of activities in block play

FACTORS REFLECTlNG COGNlTWE STYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY 49

TABLE 2

Means for the Children’s Play Behaviors Based on Their Cognitive Style

Children

Play .Behaviors

FD (N = 632) FI (N = 644)

X SD X SD

Physical Play Frequency of play

Communication of ideas

Socialization

Leadership

Block Play Frequency of play Communication of ideas

Socialization

Leadership

Manipulative Play Frequency of play


Sociallization

Leadership

Dramatic Play Frequency of play


Socialization

Leadership

3.84 .97 3.67 1.06

3.21 1.15 2.79 1.11

3.74 1.13 3.31 1.27

3.21 1.06 2.96 1.15

3.27 1.01 3.16 1.06

3.12 1.12 2.69 1.12

3.66 1.18 3.24 1.23

3.17 1.03 2.89 1.11

3.49 .90 3.36 .96 3.20 1.10 2.84 1.10

3.54 1.16 3.25 1.23

3.30 .97 3.01 1.12

3.52 .97 3.41 .99

3.29 1.10 2.81 1.13

3.82 1.14 3.41 1.24 3.23 1.02 3.01 1.12

Communication of ideas in block play .50 Socialization in block play .55 Leadership in block play .50 Communication of ideas in manipulative play

Socialization in block play .50 Socialization in dramatic play

Communication of ideas in manipulative play .56 Socialization in manipulative play .54 Socialization in dramatic play

Socil?lization in manipulative play .53 Socialization in dramatic play

Frequency of dramatic play .51 Communication of ideas in dramatic play

Communication of ideas in dramatic play .52 Socialization in dramatic play .58 Leadership in dramatic play

50 LEARNlNG AND /ND/V/DUAL DfFFERENCES VOLUME 4. NUMBER 1.1992

TABLE 3 Interrecorrelation Matrix Among PlayBehaviors for Field-dependent Children

Variables I 2 3 4 5 6

1. Frequency of physical play 1 .oooo .456X* .4040* .4403* .4453* .2816*

2. Communicating ideas in physical play 1 .oooo .SO84* .S837* .2018’ .s147*

3. Social participation in physical play 1.0000 .4309* .2oos* .3723’

4. Initiation of physical play activities 1 .oooo .2227* .4221*

5. Frequency of block play

6. Communicating ideas in block play

7. Social participation in block play

8. Initiation of block play activities

1 .oooo ,462s’

1 .oooo

9. Frequency of manipulative play

10. Communicating ideas in manipulative play

11. Social participation in manipulative play

12. Initiation of manipulative play activities

13. Frequency of dramatic play

14. Communicating ideas in dramatic play

IS. Social participation in dramatic play

16. Initiation of dramatic play activities

l p < ,001 -p<.Ol +p<.os

TABLE 4

Interrecorrelation Matrix Among Play Behaviors for Field-independent Children

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Frequency of physical play

Communicating ideas in physical play

Social participation in physical play

Initiation of physical play activities

Frequency of block play

Communicating ideas in block play

Social participation in block play

Initiation of block play activities

1 .oooo .2786* .2313* .2523* .3006*

1 .oooo .3967* .3764* - .0471

1 .oooo .3142* .0126*

1.0000 -.0154

1 .oooo

9. Frequency of manipulative play

IO. Communicating ideas in manipulative play

11. Social participation in manipulative play

12. Initiation of manipulative play activities

13. Frequency of dramatic play

14. Communicating ideas in dramatic play

IS. Social participation in dramatic play

16. Initiation of dramatic play activities

.0652’

.3708’

.21so*

.1480’

.2906*

I .oooo

’ p < ,001

-p<.Ol

+p< .05

FACTORS REFLECTING COGNITIVE STYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY 51

7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 I5 16

.2958* .3096*

.4204* .4423*

.5995* .2989*

.3387* .5591*

.3483* .37?2*

,503 3 * .5529*

1 .OOO~D .3750*

1.0000

.1846*

.1727’

.1181’

.1867*

.1624*

.1717’

.1499*

.0814-

1 .oooo

.1438*

.5375*

.3222*

.3755’

.0703-

.5002*

.3414*

.3695*

.4712*

1.0000

.2057*

.3685*

.5196*

.3018*

.1366*

.3048*

.4906*

.2613*

.2408*

.4246’

1 .oooo

.1625*

.4225’

.3048’

.4860*

.0969*

.3531*

.2911*

.4942*

.4002*

.5580*

.3132*

1.0000

.3249*

.2074*

.2199*

.2617*

.1653*

.1636*

.2126*

.1628*

.2596*

.2032*

.2751*

.1427*

1.0000

.2472*

.544a*

.3562*

.4052*

.1119*

.4747*

.3755*

.3790’

.1850*

.5426*

.3829*

.3865*

.5065*

1 .oooo

.2233 *

.3683’

.5222*

.3144*

.0874*

.2923*

.5030*

.2575’

.1444*

.3248*

.5252*

.2960*

.4159*

.5178*

1.0000

.2417*

.4171*

.3383*

.4775’

.1541*

.3477’

.3297*

.4730*

.3045*

.3997*

.3241’

.4925*

.4424’

.5772’

.4117*

1 .oooo

7 8

.1167* .0166*

.2177* .2139*

.2095 * .1565*

.1238* .2247*

.1779* .1679*

.4103* .3881*

1.0000 .2958*

1.0000

9

.1956*

- .0282

.0708+

.1094*

.2409*

.0404

.0811+

.0021

1 .oooo

10

.0014

.2914*

.2141’

.1218*

- .0667+

.3606*

.2358*

.1051*

.2736*

1 .oooo

II

.0586+

.2433*

.2717*

.0614+

- .0231

.2333*

.2587’

.1372*

.1372*

.3503*

1 .oooo

I2 13 14 I5

-.0196*

.1829*

.1941*

.1817*

- .1346*

.1619*

.1814*

.2500*

.169X*

.3614*

.3354*

1 .oooo

.2157* .0336

- .0363 .2890*

.1366* .2009*

.0861- .1317*

.1739* - .0740+

.0300 .3717*

.0747+ .2572*

.1038- .2009*

.2414* .0123

.0059 .2957*

.1284* .2853*

- .0146 .2222*

1 .oooo .3387* 1 .oooo

.0205

.1999*

.2422*

.0775+

- .0136

.2657*

.2898*

.2448*

.0338

.2001*

.3413*

.2473*

.2895’

.4796* 1 .oooo

16

.0869-

.0423’

.1333*

.1356*

.0277

.1059-

.1250’

.1402*

.0776+

.1139*

.1732*

.1861$

.3835*

.3963* .3137*

1.0000

52 LEARNlNG AND INDlVlDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME 4, NUMBER I.1992

The interrcorrelation matrix for FI children (Table 4) did not show that many patterns, but did indicate that communication of ideas in the different play areas were related to children’s associative play. Thus, children have the ability to create and communicate ideas when they play and interact with their peers. This pattern becomes more obvious in dramatic play. Another, not as obvious pattern, is their social participation and initiation of play activities. It seems that when FI children engage in associative play, they tend to share the initiation of play activities. That is, they initiate their own activities and depend on their peers to initiate their play activities.

The factor analyses were performed to check the similarity in factor structures. Two criteria were used to determine a two factor structure: (1) the Kaiser-Guttman Rule (Guttman 1954; Kaiser 1970) for extracting only factors with Eigenvalues greater than one and (2) Cattell’s (1966) scree test, where the predominant factors account for most of the variance and are large, whereas the other factors are quite numerous but small. Because the principal factor solution extracts factors by size, the substantive factors will be extracted first and the smaller trivial factors will be removed later. An analysis of each of the interpretable factor’s cluster of high loading items (loadings greater than .5) resulted in the assignment of names of factor needs that best conceptualized each factor’s high-loading items. Those items with factor loadings greater than 5.00 were then judged to be the high priority play behaviors of FD and FI preschool children who played in the different play areas. The factors for FD and FI children are presented in Table 5 and discussed in the sections below.

GENERATION OF FACTOR NEEDS

Factor analysis was used to accurately identity those factors underlying the play of FD and FI children. The factor analysis procedure (Kerlinger 1986) was selected because it creates categories of items that result from empirically obtained relationships. For the analysis, the children’s play behaviors on the PRS were assigned a weighted value, one through five, which corresponded to the four play behaviors (e.g., frequency of play, ability to create and communicate ideas, social levels of participation, and ability to lead in play activities) on each subscale. The resultant weighted play behaviors were submitted to factor analysis using principal compo- nents factor extraction followed by orthogonal rotation by Varimax criterion.

The principal component factor analysis resulted in the identification of two factors for FD and two factors for FI children with eigenvalues greater than one (eigenvalues of 5.72 for factor 1 and 1.00 for factor 2 for FD children; while eigenvalues of 3.07 for factor 1 and 1.06 for factor 2 for FI children). Therefore, only those two factors for FD and FI children represented significant factors. These significant factors were rotated by the Varimax criterion.

An analysis of the high loading items on each of the rotated factors was undertaken to determine which factors were interpretable. The criterion, as described by Gorsuch (1983), was used to establish interpretability. Only those items with sufficient loading should be considered in the interpretation of factors to

FACTORS REFLECJING COGNlJWE STYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY 53

TABLE 5

Two Varimax Factors of the PRS Comparing FD and FI Children

Factor Loadings

Item Variable Definition

FD Children

Factor I Factor 2

FI Children

Factor I Factor 2

Physical Play 1 Frequency of play .57 .50

2 Communication of ideas .55 .50

3 Socialization .50 4 Leadership .50 .50

Block Play 5 Frequency of play .69 .78 6 Communication of ideas .60 .50

7 Socialization .50

8 Leadership .55

Ma+ulative Play 9 Frequency of play


11 Socialization .76 .53

12 Leadership .59 SO

Drama tic Play 13 Frequency of play


15 Socialization .62 .56

16 Leadership .62

Eigenvalue 5.72 1 .oo 3.07 1.06

Percent variance 86.00 14.00 74.3U 25.70

Factor loadings of more than SO

assume that a significant relationship exists between the item and the factor. With a large n, Gorsuch (1983) recommends an absolute value of .3 as a minimum loading for interpretation. However, for this study, a more conservative value of .5 was used,. Thus, items with a factor loading greater than .5 would result in a more accurate interpretation of the factors. The application of these criteria for interpretability resulted in two factors for FD and two factors for FI children being retained for further analyses. These interpretable factors accounted for 86 percent of the PRS variance for FD children and 74.3 percent for FI children.

An analysis of each of the interpretable factor’s cluster of high loading items (loadings greater than .5) resulted in the assignment of names of factor needs that best ‘conceptualized each factor’s high-loading items. Those items with factor loadings greater than .5 were then judged to be the high priority play behaviors of FD and FI preschool children who played in the different play areas.

54 LEARNING AND /ND/V/DUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1.1992

FD CHILDREN

Factor 1, Communicating ideas through the use ofdramatic, manipulative, and physical activities, accounted for 86 percent of the total play behaviors rotated variance. The high-loading items on this factor indicated that FD children communicated their ideas in parallel dramatic, manipulative, and physical play. In factor 1, FD children engaged in dramatic, physical, and manipulative parallel play. They seemed to prefer body movement activities (such as running, walking, hopping). In dramatic and physical play, FD children depended on others as often as they initiated their own play activities; in manipulative play, they preferred to initiate their own play activities.

Factor 2, Communicating ideas in physical and block activities, accounted for 14 percent of the total play behaviors rotated variance. The high-loading items on this factor indicated that FD children communicated their ideas in block play. In factor 2, FD children engaged in physical and block parallel play. They seemed to prefer building with blocks and participating in body movement activities (such as running, walking, hopping). In both physical and block play, FD children depended on others as often as they initiated their own play activities.

FI CHILDREN

Factor 1, Communicating ideas in allforms ofplay, accounted for 74.3 percent of the total variance. An examination of the high-loading items suggests that the FI preschool children were concerned with the communication of ideas in physical, block, manipulative and dramatic play. In factor 1, FI children engaged in manipulative and dramatic parallel play. In both manipulative and dramatic play, FI children depended on others as often as they initiated their own play activities.

Factor 2, Engaging in block and physical play, accounted for 25.7 percent of the variance. An inspection of the high-loading items indicates that the FI preschool children frequently engaged in block and physical play. In factor 1, FI children seemed to prefer building with blocks and body movement activities (such as running, walking, hopping).

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study indicate that young FD children communicate ideas (1) in dramatic, manipulative, and physical play activities, and (2) in physical and block play activities. Young FI children (1) communicate ideas in all forms of play, and frequently engage in block and physical play. The similarities between these two groups are that they participated in all forms of play in all areas and displayed the same play behaviors, although the loadings were usually higher for FD children. The major differences between these two groups of children are that more play behaviors were observed in FD children than in FI children; however, the FI

FACTORS REFLECTING COGNlTlVE STYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY 55

children’s independence was evident in that they tended to communicate their ideas in all forms of play or engaged in play without socializing or attempting to engage in play activities as was observed in factor 2. There also seemed to be less communication in relation to play engagement for FI children in the areas of block play and physical play.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Using knowledge of the cognitive style of the children in their class, teachers can plan more meaningful and challenging play activities for each child. This knowledge could help the teacher anticipate the degree of communication among the children. FI children might be less likely to communicate with other children in play activities that do not require communication for the continuity of play. Because dramatic play, by its nature, requires a high degree of intercommunication among players, there will probably be no great difference in the frequency of communications related to children’s cognitive style. On the other hand, physical play and block play can be engaged in independently by children. One might expect greater differences in children’s communication related to their cognitive styles in these areas. The factors identified here could help in selecting play activities which are of greater interest to and are more developmentally appropriate for FD and FI children.

An awareness of the factors identified in this study should be helpful to teachers concerned with promoting cognitive growth in preschool children. FD children tend to focus on communication through physical and manipulative play. These children also use toys symbolically in dramatic play. They also participate in these activities socially and depend on others to initiate these forms of play as much as they initiate play themselves. They frequently engage in movement and block play activities. Their initiation of activities in these areas is similar to that for other areas. FI children also communicate through physical and manipulative play and use toys symbolically in block play. They often engage in block play.

There are procedures available that classroom teachers can use to identify young children’s cognitive style (Saracho 1983). These include the Articulation offhe Body- Concept (ABC) Scale where children draw a set of male and female drawings. Both drawings are assessed based on the “(1) form level of the drawings, (2) the degree to which the identity and sex are differentiated in the drawing, and (3) the level of detailing in the drawing” (p. 232). FD children can be distinguished from FI children based on the detail of the drawings. More detailed drawings indicate field- independence while more primitive drawings indicate field-dependence.

Teachers can also use the Field-sensitive and Field-independent Child Behavior Observation lnsfrumenfs developed by Ramirez and Castarieda (1974). These instruments include a list of classroom behaviors by which teachers can rate the behaviors they observe in young children. These behaviors are categorized as FD or FI classroom behaviors.

Once the children’s cognitive style is identified, then teachers can: (1) match play experiences to the children’s dominant cognitive style, and (2) use activities to

56 LEARNlNG AND lNDlVlDUAL DIFFERENCES VOLUME4. NUMBER 1.1992

develop “cognitive flexibility,” helping children to function and process information using whichever cognitive process is appropriate. Children could be allowed to select play activities which match their cognitive style to achieve the first of these objectives or be encouraged to engage in play activities which differ from their cognitive style to achieve the last.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study suggest that further investigations of cognitive style and play would be worthwhile. Following on the present study, a larger number of children could be studied to extract more specific factors which would provide more in-depth information concerning children’s cognitive style and play. The present study identifies differences in young children’s social interest and play communications related to FDI. FD children seemed more socially oriented in their play than their FI counterparts. It seems evident that some play experiences and factors overlap in the children’s cognitive style and play. However, additional studies are needed before any generalizations about young children are offered. To date, studies investigating the relationship between social orientation and field- dependence-independence have only been conducted with older children and adults. Evidence from these studies indicate that FD persons posses a sensitive radar system, which is selectively attuned to social elements in the social milieu. Therefore, these motivational variables need to be studied together. Additional studies with young children are needed to further explore whether children’s cognitive and social behaviors are stable.

Research on cognitive style and play should also be extended to include children’s specific interests in environmental play areas (i.e., indoor and outdoor play). The children’s choices in play activities can consist of speech play, role playing, art activities, music activities, using puppets, dramatizing stories or sharing events. Research on children’s choices of play activities can provide more relevant information regarding the children’s developmental stages in cognitive style and play. For example, a child who prefers to work alone in manipulative play is probably at a more mature developmental level than a child who prefers to engage in cooperative dramatic play, while a child who prefers to tell a story is probably better developed in language than one who prefers to listen to a story. Studies examining cognitive style and play can support, reject or introduce new evidence on the above speculations. Rigorous research can provide evidence showing ways in which children’s cognitive growth can be developed during their play using their dominant cognitive style.

SUMMARY

The present study identified factors underlying the play behaviors of field- dependent and field-independent children (ages three, four and five). The results

FACTORS REFLECTNG COGNlTWESTYLE IN YOUNG CHILDREN’S PLAY 57

in this study provide some guidelines to educators and reseachers in conceptual- izing, operationalizing, and quantifying factors related to young children’s play based on their cognitive style. While these social behaviors are difficult to observe directly, they can be inferred from behavioral samples. An understanding of children’s play based on their cognitive style can guide educators in developing more relevant educational programs for preschool children.

Although a great deal of research has been conducted in the area of cognitive styles over the last four decades, more studies are needed. Different cognitive styles have been examined independent of each other. However, cognitive styles tend to be integrated into a pattern of cognitive and socioemotional performance. The specific combination or configuration of the characteristics of cognitive styles in a child probably can better predict the child’s behavior under particular circum- stances. Regrettably, researchers of cognitive style have barely skimmed the surface and do not quite understand the complexities of the patterns found in the different cognitive styles and their influence on the child’s behavior and experience.

REFERENCES

Cattell, R.B. (1966). “The scree test for the number of factors.” Multivariate Behaviorul ,Reseurch, Z(2), 245-276.

Coates, S. (1972). Preschool Embedded Figures Test. Pablo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Coates, S., M. Lord &E. Jakabovics. “Field dependence-independence, social-nonsocial play and sex differences.” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 195-202.

Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Guttman, L. (1954). “Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis.” Psychometriku,

:19(2). 149-161. Hubert, L. (1977). “Kappa revisited.” Psychological Bulletin, 84(2), 289-297. Kaiser, H.F. (1970). “A second generation Little Jiffy.” Psychometriku, 35(4), 401-415. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston. Kogan, N. (1987). “Some behavioral implications of cognitive styles in early childhood.”

IEarly Child Development and Cure, 29,595-598. Messick, S. (1984). “The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational

practice.” Educational Psychologisf, l9(2), 59-74. Ramirez, M. III & A. Castaneda. (1974). Culfurul democracy, bicognitive development and

education. New York: Academic Press. Renninger, K.A. & I.E. Sigel. (1987). “The development of cognitive organization in young

children: An exploratory study.” Early Child Development and Cure, 29,133-161. Saracho, O.N. (1983). “Assessing individual differences in young children.” Studies in

Educational Evaluation, 8,229-236. --. (1984). ‘Construction and validation of the playratingscale.’ Early Child Development

und Cure, 17, 199-230. --. (1987). “Cognitive Style in the Play of Young Children.” Early Child Development und

Cure, 29, 163-179.

58 LEARNING AND /ND/V/DUAL DFFERENCES VOLUME 4. NUMBER I,1992

Saracho, O.N. & B. Spodek. (1981). “The teacher’s cognitive styles and their educational implications.” Educational Forum, 45,153-159.

Steele, C. (1981). “Play variables as related to cognitive constructs in three- to six-year-olds.” Journal of Research and Development in Education, 14,58-72.

Witkin, H.A. & D.R. Goodenough. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press.

Witkin, H.A., R.B. Dyk, H.F. Faterson, D.R. Goodenough & S.A. Karp. (1974). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.

factors reflecting cognitive style in young children's play

Documents