Xerox University Microfilms
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) dr section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zaeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 7819625 LA*B#‘ DEANNA NARIE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A DEVELOPNENTAl MODEL OF PLAY FACILITATION FOR ENHANCING IMAGINATIVE PLAY IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN, THE OHIO STATE UNIVER8ITY* PH.D., 1978 0 1978 DEANNA MARIE LAMB ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF PLAY FACILITATION FOR ENHANCING IMAGINATIVE PLAY IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Deanna Mt Lamb, A.B., M. Ed. * * # # The Ohio State University 1978 Reading Committeet Dr. Donald Haefele Approved By Dr. Charles Wolfgar^ Dr. Marlin Languis Advisor Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I an deeply Indebted to Dr. Donald Haefele for the confidence he has unendingly shown, and the hours he has selflessly given not only during this project, but through out my stay at The Ohio State University, My sense of gratitude toward Kirk Lamb is equally profound. His loving support and extensive professional contribution will take a lifetime to adequately repay. My assistants, Jane Swarr, Margaret Crockett, Marianne Crafts, Laurie Dhaens, and Haney Stock went beyond coopera- .tiveness to sensitive helpfulness throughout this lengthy endeavor— I am sincerely thankful to each of them. Thanks also must go to Evie Freeman and Barbara Bremer for their reliable and extensive assistance in rating protocols. Lois Draper and Marcia Merz, my typists, brought to the final, technical phase of reportage, the high leyels of precision and intelligence and the sense of humor so desper ately needed to compensate for the levels of functior|ing which I brought. II VITA .......... » . B o m — Van 3uren, Maine 1966 ................ B. A. (Music Education, Rivier Colleget Nashuat New Hampshire 1966-1972 . , ........ School Music Teacher— Blackstone-Millville Elementary Schools! 31ackstonet Mass. Wilson Junior High School, Natick, Massachusetts Ashburnham Elementary School, Ashbumhara, Massachusetts 197^ ............ M.Ed. (Early and Middle Child hood Education), The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELD OF STUDY Major Field of Study* Early and Middle Childhood Education Professors Donald Haefele, Charles Wolfgang, and Marlin Languis III TABLE 0? CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDCEMENTS LI VITA ILL LIST OF TABLES , Lx LIST OF FIGURES, xlL Chanter I. INTRODUCTION Purposes of the Study .......... 1 Need for the Study.............. 2 A Developmental Model of Play Facilitation .............. Playing (Productive) versus Non-Playing (Non-Productive) Children .................. Assumptions Underlying the Wolfgang Model............ The Play Training Method........ I Purpose of the Study. ...... 8 Imaginative Play— A Definition. 8 Imaginative Play Predisposition . 9 Conceptual Tempo or Impulsivity/Reflection. 10 Conceptual Tempo and Fantasy Predisposition . II The Functional Structure of Playthings...................... 12 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE lb Imaginative Play as a Cognitive Skill The Non-Universality of Imaginative Play During Preschool Years .... 17 Modifications of Children's Symbolic P l a y .............. 21 A f f e c t ...................... 30 Concentration................ 32 A Developmental Model of Play Facilitation...................... 3^ lv Page Play Intervention and Impulse Control. .......... 37 Reactivation ................ 38 Symbolic Play Training ....... 38 Hypothesis la. ............ 39 Hypothesis 2a.......................... 39 Fantasy Predisposition................. 40 Estimating Fantasy Predispositions . 40 Correlates of Fantasy Pre disposition. ................ ifl Other Investigations of Fantasy Predisposition .................... 4-2 Hypothesis lc. .......... **8 Hypothesis 2c. ................ *+8 Hypothesis 3c..................... Jf8 Hypothesis 3a.................... * 4-9 Conceptual Tempo....................... 58 Measurement of Conceptual Tempo. 51 Developmental Trends in Irapulslvity/Reflection ............ 51 Correlational Investigations of Conceptual Tempo .......... 52 Modiflability of Irapulsivity .... 53 Conceptual Tempo and Fantasy Predisposition .......... ..... 58 Hypothesis 3b............ •......... 58 Hypothesis 2b............ ..... 58 Hypothesis 4-..................... 59 III. METHODS.................................... 60 Overview.................. 6 l Experiment #1..................... 61 Experiment #2............ ..... 61 Sample................................. 61 Demographic Information.......... 63 Setting............................... 63 Playroom Contents. 65 The Classroom.................... 68 Observers.................... 68 Nature of the Observations...... 69 Inter-Observer Agreement ...... 72 Weaknesses....................... 73 Expressive Differences ....... 73 Conditions...................... 74 Test Administrators.................. 74- Observation Protocol Raters ....... 75 Procedures............................. 76 Pre-Observations .................. 76 v Page Pre-Testing............................ 78 Assignment to G r o u p s .............. 79 Design........................ 80 Treatments.................. 80 Session # 1 ........................ 81 Session .#2 . .................. 82 Session # 3 ........................ 82 Session ,#4-........................ 82 Session # 5 ........................ 83 Session §o 83 Session # 7 .............. 83 Session ,#8 .......... 84- Session # 9 ........................ 84- Debriefing................. ....... 85 Instruments ......... 87 The Imaginative Play Predisposition Interview ...... 87 The Vocabulary Subscale of The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI)............................ 88 Reward Selection Procedure.............. 89 The Early Childhood-Watching Familiar Figures (EC-MFF).......... 91 Draw A Line Slowly ......... 94- Rating Scales for Imaginativeness, Concentration, and Affect. ..... 98 IV. RESULTS....................................... 99 Sources of Datat Pretreatment.......... 99 A g e .................. 101 Verbal Ability. ....... .......... 101 Pre-Treatment Fantasy Levels.............. 103 Correction for Continuity . .......... 103 Pre-Treatment Equivalence of Groups on Imaginativeness, Concentration and Affect Ratings.............................104- Pre-Treatment Equivalence of Groups on Reflection and Motor Inhibition ........ 104- Pre-Treatment Correlations Setween Imaginativeness, Concentration and Affect Ratings.............................105 Pre-Treatment Equivalence of Groups on Rewards Selection. .................. 105 Summary.......................... 106 Inter-Observer Agreement............ 106 Inter-Rater Agreement .................. 107 vi Page Data D o s s ........ .......... .. 107 Posttest Results (Sxperiment #1 . 107 Sources of Datai Posttesting. 108 Hypothesis la.................. 108 Imaginativeness ............ 109 Concentration .............. 109 Affect. .................... 114 In Summary. .......... 114 Hypothesis lb.................... 117 Reflection.................. 117 Motor Inhibition............ 117 Summary.................. 117 Final Test Results (Sxperiment 02). 122 Sources of Datai Final Testing. 122 Hypothesis 2a.................... 122 Imaginativeness • .......... 122 Concentration ........ ■ 123 Affect. ........... 124 In Summary.................. 125 Hypothesis 2b.................... 125 Reflection............ .. 125 Motor Inhibition.......... 126 Summary . .................. 127 Hypothesis 3 .................... 128 Imaginativeness ............ 128 Concentration .......... 129 Affect...................... 130