ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF RESEARCH Copyright 2022 by THE PACIFIC

IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

Vol.16, No.3, September 2022, pp.47-69 ISSN 1976-1961
http://dx.doi.org/10.17206/apjrece.2022.16.3.47

Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers:

Video-Based Analysis of Free and
Structured Toy Play Scenario

Megha Mohan1) Reenu Celshiya. A Jayashree S. Bhat

Kasturba Medical College KMC Hospital

Abstract
Play is a universal code, which mirrors the all-round development of a child. Play development reflects
the emergence of early cognitive skills in children. The current study profiles the developmental trends
of different types of play during the free and structured play scenario in South India. The sample
included 48 pre-school children, aged between 3.6 to 5.6 years. Children’s play was recorded in two
scenarios, which included free Play (spontaneous Play without any restrictions) and structured toy play
(restriction of toy usage limited to the four types of toys provided by investigator), in the classroom
settings. The data was analysed using the coding scheme that was adapted by combining two existing
standardised play scales i.e. Play Observation Scale and Play in Early Childhood Evaluation System.
In the coding scheme, play types were grouped under three domains which were Functional Play, Social
Play, and Cognitive Play. Cognitive play was further divided into two domains that are Simple pretend
play (SPP) and Complex pretend Play (CPP) which has the subtypes adapted from Play in Early
Childhood Evaluation System. The results revealed that the occurrence of play type was higher in the
free play scenario and reduced in the structured toy play scenario. A developmental trend was observed
in free play over structured toy play among children. The findings would be helpful in planning play-
based counselling/intervention strategies for children and create awareness to teachers about the various
developmental patterns of play types.

Keywords : free play, structured toy play, play types, development, pre-schoolers

Corresponding author, 1)Megha Mohan: meghamohan11@gmail.com

47
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

Introduction

Childhood is a period where children are engaged mainly in physical activities through
play. Play stands outside the ‘ordinary’ life; it is non-serious and has no precise goal in itself,
but at that time, it fascinates the player profusely (Goldstein, 2012). Several authors
attempted to categorise play based on their perspectives. One of the significant classifications
of play is based on the Piagetian Theory, which defines three types of play based on human
development, i.e. symbolic play, sensorimotor play, and game with rules (Piaget, 1962). In a
study by Lester and Russell (2008), they explained five types of play, i.e. highly active games
such as chasing, rough-and-tumble play, and play fighting; pretend and socio-dramatic play;
language play; social play and games with rules; and constructive play. Graham and
Burghardt (2010), in their research, mentioned other ways in which researchers have
categorised play: large-motor, small-motor, mastery, rule-based, construction, make-believe,
symbolic, language, sensory, rough and tumble, risk-taking, and arts play. Symbolic play
initiates during the early infancy as an infant generates the play with one or more objects
(McCune, 2010). Emergence of symbolic Play is usually landmarked at eight months (Orr &
Geva, 2015). Object play refers to playful use of objects such as building blocks, puzzles,
cars, dolls, etc rather than interactive Play (Vig, 2007). It allows children to form new
combinations of actions, learn functional use of objects, build up problem solving skills and
develop a creative attitude. Cognitive skills such as motivation, focussed attention and
representational capacities are vital for object play (Vig, 2007). Pretend play is a type of
playful behaviour that engages nonliteral action (Russ & Dillon, 2011). Pretend play can be
classified into Object-Dependent Pretend Play, Socio-Dramatic Play, and Thematic Play
(Wyver & Spence, 1999), of which the socio-dramatic and thematic types are considered to
be more complex. Construction play includes playing by building things with play objects or
materials such as clay or Legos. It is common in pre-school classrooms (Rubin et al., 1978);
however, lower in prevalence at home in children below six years (Bloch, 1987). Another
recent categorisation of play is provided by the National Institute for Play (2018), which
discerns play into seven types, i.e. Attunement Or Mimic Play, Body Play and Movement,
Object Play, Social Play, Imaginative and Pretend Play, Storytelling-Narrative Play, and
Creative Play (Nijhof et al., 2018).

48
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

Play can also be differentially labelled as Structured (Guided Play) and Unstructured Play
(Free Play). Structured play is the type of play wherein the act of play is primarily adult-
oriented with a specified set of play partners, play materials, and often predictable activities
and behaviours. The fact that sets structured play apart from unstructured play is the adult
involvement and the existence of predetermined rules (Gmitrova & Gmitrov, 2003). A
structured observation of play restricts the children to the manipulation and usage of objects
specified in that observational setting, constraining the activities and behaviours they exhibit.
However, some studies report that guided Play or structured Play helped children in learning
(Mayer, 2004).
On the other hand, unstructured Play or Free Play is child-oriented, does not have
predetermined contents, and is generally considered the most naturalistic way of playing.
Free play is child-centric, based on the child’s interest which helps children to explore
materials, express and controls their emotions, come to terms with traumatic experiences,
and gain physical and mental strength (Santer et al., 2007). It provides children opportunities
to utilise their awareness of resources to play ingeniously and follow their interests in a more
naturalistic way at their environment such as schools or residence with the objects they are
exposed in everyday basis with minimal constraints. Studies have reported that children with
communication and developmental disabilities show a reduced capacity to involve in Free
Play in comparison to their peers (Reichow et al., 2016). A type of Free Play usually endorsed
is the Sociodramatic Pretend Play where children can practice and pretend imaginative
characters and follow social rules (e.g. pretending to be a family).
The pre-school years are the foundation for academic performance, during this period
children go through many developmental changes (Jones et al., 2003) in socio-pragmatic
skills and emotional regulation (Lillard, 2017), communication skills (Weisberg et al., 2013),
and cognitive skills (Thibodeau et al., 2016). Typically developing pre-schoolers spend a
substantial portion of their time engaging in object play in their schools. During this period
there is a high occurrence of advanced ways of social play forms like pretend Play,
constructive Play, and also non-social Play (Sanderson, 2010). Pellegrini and Bjorklund
(2004) have given a comprehensive outline for pre-school play types as constructive object
play, exercise Play, functional object play, symbolic Play, and rough and tumble Play. Play
stands indispensable to childhood development as it is one of the ways to build a strong

49
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

relationship between peers; it also helps in academic progress, cognitive development, self-
regulation, social competence, learning, and attention (National Council for Curriculum
Assessment, 2009). During the early years of childhood, play is the major means of physical
activity for children (Prioreschi et al., 2020). Children develop and understand the norms of
society through play which provides them with a safe arena for exploring these skills without
the fear of negative consequences (Hoffmann & Russ, 2016). Play is a valuable way to assess
a child’s development, as it gives access to the child’s communication in a real and functional
context. Children with developmental disabilities demonstrate a significant deviation in their
play and sometimes these deviations are one of the most noticeable characteristics in these
children. Play-based intervention is yet another important implication of play, which shows
improvement in the child’s overall development.

Present Study

Typically developing pre-schoolers spend a substantial portion of their time engaging in

object play in their schools. Although we know that the complexity of play increases with
age, the developmental trajectory of play especially in pre-school period in an Indian scenario
is unknown. Profiling play behaviors exhibited by pre-schoolers in school setting will
contribute to the emerging concept of play-based assessment and intervention which helps to
gather information about the developmental deviations of a child in developmental domains
such as communication, gross and fine motor skills in a real and functional context. As a
deep understanding of the developmental trends of play in typically developing children is
essential for understanding the deviation of play in children with developmental disabilities,
the present study aimed to profile the developmental trends of play in pre-school children.
This information would also help in the formulation of IEP objectives for children with
developmental disabilities involving play, enabling these children to experience normalised,
contextually pertinent experiences like their peers. Therefore, the present study aimed at
profiling the developmental trends of play in pre-schoolers and to understand the influence
of play scenarios (free and structured toy play) on child’s play skills. The present study
hypothesised that a developmental trend would be observed in the play behaviours exhibited
by pre-schoolers. The study also hypothesised that a significant influence of play scenario

50
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

would be present on the play skills exhibited by pre-schoolers with Free Play witnessing
higher frequencies of cognitive play types than Structured Toy Play.

Methodology

Participant Recruitment

The study followed a cross-sectional study design and employed a convenient sampling
method for sample collection. Forty-eight typically developing Indian children between the
age ranges of 3.6 to 5.6 years were recruited for the study from private playschools in and
around Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka state in India. Children who were from
middle socioeconomic status (ascertained by Kuppuswamy socio economic status scale),
passed language screening on Assessment of Language Development (Lakkanna et al., 2008)
and Ten question disability checklist (Singhi et al., 2007)) were included as participants.
Assessment of Language Development is a norm-referenced performance-based tool used to
assess children's receptive and expressive language abilities from birth to seven years and
eleven months. It comprises of basal and ceiling scores, to determine the language age of a
child. Children with any speech, language and hearing deficits, intellectual deficits, sensory
deficits or any other developmental disabilities were excluded from the present study. The
recruited participants were divided into four groups with a six months interval in each group
(3.7-4.0 years, 4.1-4.6 years, 4.7-5.0 years, and 5.1-5.6 years). Each group consisted of 12
participants with equal gender representation, and a total of 48 participants were recruited for
the study.

Procedure

Prior to the commencement of the study, ethical clearance was obtained from the
institutional ethical board and informed consent was obtained from the parents. They were
explained that the video recording and any personal information, including the child's age,
and date of birth, would be kept confidential and used only for research. The present study

51
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

recorded the play behaviours of children in two play scenarios i.e. Free Play and Structured
Toy Play. The operational definition of Free Play in the present study is play that is
spontaneously initiated by children without adhering to any rules or restriction on toys, game
types, etc. During this scenario the investigator did not provide the child with any play
materials or toys. They were allowed to play in a classroom which was a familiar environment
for the child and it promotes more natural peer interactions (Abbas et al., 2016). The
classroom was rearranged to accommodate a play area at the centre of the classroom with
play mats placed on the floor. The other scenario that was recorded for the present research
was the Structured Toy Play scenario. This refers to a scenario which although did not have
adult involvement, had restricted the toy usage to the four categories of toys provided by the
investigator. The toys provided included a fictional/cartoon character (e.g. Spiderman
miniature), toy depicting a real-life object (such as toy stethoscope), gender specific toys
(doll, car) and gender-neutral toys (ball, and Legos). A combination of neutral and gender
specific toys were used to increase the opportunity of observing a variety of play types in
children (Cherney & London, 2006). The video recording for this scenario as well was
conducted in the same classroom with the toys placed in the centre of the classroom by the
investigator.

Recording and Observation Protocol:

The investigator visited each school from which data was collected for three consecutive
weeks and recorded the Free Play and Structured Toy Play scenario spanning over the course
of the entire day. It was observed from the pilot study that was conducted prior to the main
data collection that the Free Play scenario was significantly affected by the Structured Toy
Play scenario and therefore the recording of the Structured Toy Play scenario commenced
post completion of the Free Play scenario. The investigator recorded the play scenarios twice
a day (morning and afternoon) to avoid fatigue or lack of interest. A 15 minutes recording of
each scenario for every child was obtained (15 minutes recording, 10 minutes coding) with
an average of five minutes recording per session per week. Children were divided into a
group of four and the members of the group remained constant for both scenarios every week.
The initiation or termination of the recording was not announced to the participants to avoid
its influence on the play skills and children were allowed to play for longer than the recorded

52
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

duration. The role of the investigator was that of a passive observer without any involvement
with the participants and research reveals that child behaviours are not altered drastically in
the presence of an observer (Dowdney et al., 1984).

Data Analysis
Offline analysis of the video recordings was done and the play types were coded. To avoid
the investigator bias, the videos were coded by two researchers individually for different play
types in both the scenarios. The coding between the two researchers showed 90% agreement.
The coding scheme that was employed for the analysis was adapted by combining two
existing standardised play scales i.e. Play Observation Scale (Rubin, 1989) and Play in Early
Childhood Evaluation System (Kelly-Vance & Ryalls, 2014). The play types were grouped
under three domains which were Functional Play (Rubin et al., 1983; Smilansky, 1968),
Social Play (Parten, 1932; Rubin, 1989), and Cognitive Play (Piaget, 1962; Rubin, 1989;
Rubin et al., 1983) in the coding scheme. Cognitive play was further divided into two
domains that are Simple pretend play (SPP) and Complex pretend Play (CPP) which has the
subtypes adapted from Play in Early Childhood Evaluation System (Kelly-Vance & Ryalls,
2014). The coding of play types according to the domains was presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Coding of Play Types

Domain Play types

Functional play Basic manipulation (BM)

Mouthing (Mo)
Complex Exploration (CE)
Single functional actions (SF)
Non-matching combination (NC)
Similarity-based combination of actions (SC)
Social play Functional combination of objects (FC)

Cognitive play Solitary play (SP)

Associative play (AS)
Parallel play (PP)

53
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

Table 1. Coding of Play Types (continued)

Domain Play types

Simple pretend play Group play (GP)

Co-operative play (Cop)

Constructive play (Con)
Games with Rules (GR)
Complex pretend play Simple Pretend Play (SPP)
Complex Pretend Play (CPP)

Approximate pretend play (AP)

Self-directed play-act (SD)
Object directed play-act (ObD)
Repetitive combination (RC)
Agentive play-act (AGP)
Self-substitution play-act (SSub)
Object substitution play-act (OSub)

2 steps Complex Pretend Play (2CPP)

3 steps Complex Pretend Play (3CPP)
4+ Complex Pretend Play (4CPP)
Pre-planned Complex Pretend Play (PCPP)
Multi-theme Complex Pretend Play (MCPP)
Complex pretend play with substitution (SCPP)

The obtained data, which included the compilation of play types, were subjected to
descriptive statistical analysis. The frequency of occurrence of each play types was
descriptively measured in the two play scenarios. As children were divided into four groups,
the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to find whether there was a significant difference across
the age groups for different play types.

Results

The data obtained from the video recordings were descriptively analysed for the frequency
of occurrence of play types. The results of this domain are discussed with respect to the two
play scenarios i.e. Free Play and Structured Toy Play. Overall, there was an increase in the
complexity of play types with an increase in age in the Structured Toy Play as well as Free
Play scenario. The frequency of play types in free and Structured Toy Play scenarios across

54
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

Figure 1. Comparison of frequency of play types during free play and structured toy play in groups I,
II, III, and IV

the four groups is depicted in Figure 1.

Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to identify differences in the play types across the age
groups. In Free Play scenario, statistically significant differences were observed in the
following play types. In functional play, Single functional actions (SF) [X2 (3) = 14.193, p =
0.003], Similarity-based combination of actions (SC) [X2 (3) = 9.592, p = 0.022], Functional
combination of objects (FC) [X2 (3) = 14.306, p = 0.003], and Complex Exploration (CE) [X2
(3) = 9.788, p = 0.020]. In the domain of social play, Group play (GP) [X2 (3) = 20.153, p =
0.000] and Games with Rules (GR) [X2 (3) = 13.183, p = 0.004] in cognitive play.
Considering Simple pretend play, Self-directed play-act (SD) [X2 (3) = 16.364, p = 0.001],
Repetitive combination (RC) [X2 (3) = 12.840, p = 0.005], and Self-substitution play-act
(SSub) [X2 (3) = 13.408 , p = 0.004] had statistical significant differences. Analysis of
Complex Pretend Play had significant difference in 2step Complex Pretend Play (2CPP) [X2
(3) = 12.738 , p = 0.001], Pre-planned Complex Pretend Play (PCPP) [X2 (3) = 17.260, p =
0.001], Complex pretend play with substitution (SCPP) [X2 (3) = 12.791, p = 0.005], and
Multi-theme Complex Pretend Play (MCPP) [X2 (3) = 16.808, p = 0.001].
In Structured Toy Play scenario, Complex Exploration (CE) [X2 (3) = 8.951, p = 0.030]
(Functional play), Object substitution play-act (OSub) [X2 (3) = 10.370, p = 0.016] (Simple

55
Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

56
Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

57
Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

58
Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

59
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

pretend play), 3 step Complex Pretend Play (3CPP) [X2 (3) = 12.547, p = 0.006], and Multi-
theme Complex Pretend Play (MCPP) [X2 (3) = 16.345, p = 0.001] (Complex Pretend Play)
showed a significant difference across the groups. Apart from this, no other play type had a
significant difference. Tables 2 and 3 shows the Kruskal-Wallis H test results obtained for
the types of play for both the play scenarios.

Discussion

The types of play exhibited by children during free play and structured toy play scenario
were obtained from the frequency analysis of the video recording.

Functional Play

Single Functional Action is performing one action with or without an object. In free play,
it was observed that there was an increase in the frequency of occurrence of Single Functional
Action from Group I to Group IV. This is in consonance with the review by Whitebread
(2012), stating that simple physical play peaks at the pre-school age and it aids in the
development of the child’s social competence, learning, and attention skills. This observation
also supports the notion that functional play is a mature and a more developmentally adaptive
form of object manipulation (Zelazo & Kearsley, 1980). In contrast to the findings from the
free play scenario, the structured toy play scenario showed a decline in the occurrence of
Single Functional Action from Group I to Group IV. The reason for this could be that toys
have a tendency to make the child less engaged in simple functional action in comparison to
other types of play (e.g. pretend play) (Malone & Langone, 1998).
Similarity-based combinations of action and functional combination of actions could be
described as combining objects based on physical and object similarity. In the present study,
these behaviours majorly occurred in the structured toy play scenario; however, there was a
significant increase in combinations of action as a function of age in the free play scenario.
Studies report that the complexity of using objects with appropriate functions develops
gradually in toddlers (Whitebread, 2012), which is in consensus with the study findings. Non-

60
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

matching combination (random combinations of the object) was majorly seen only in Group
I (3.6 to 4 years) which indicates that younger children start developing their representational
abilities with toys and once they obtain mastery over the skills, they begin to build
symbolisation (Stroud, 1995). Repeated Combination, that is the same play behavior with the
same toy directed toward two or more different objects/people or the same play behavior seen
with different toys on one object/person, occurred with more frequency across the groups,
indicating that children tend to repeat the symbolic behavior (Lifter & Bloom, 1989). The
Complex Exploration, wherein two or more actions with object are seen, showed significant
differences across the groups in both the play scenarios. Bonawitz et al. (2011) indicated that
the pre-school children’s play explorations help them learn and with direct instructions, the
instances of exploration increase. Moreover, exploration also aids in facilitating the
understanding of cause and effect relationship through investigation of novel toys in order to
understand how they function (Schulz & Bonawitz, 2007). In this current study, Complex
Exploration behavior of pre-school children was exhibited in both the scenarios of play
equally.

Social Play

Solitary play is to engage in an activity entirely alone, usually more than three feet away
from other children. This type of play was observed only in free play scenario. This is in
agreement with the evidence from the literature that, solitary-active behaviours would more
often be observed in free play scenario as the unstructured play is more conducive for
functional activities (Coplan & Rubin, 1998). Moreover, it could also be the reason why these
children are demonstrating social disinterest during the structured toy play scenario (Coplan
& Rubin, 1998; Tessier, 2016). Associative play involves engaging in games with other
children without coordination or following the rules of the game. These behaviours was
observed in higher frequency in structured toy play although there was no statistically
significant difference. This supports the findings of Rubin et al (1978) that not much of a
change is observed in Associative Play in younger group in comparison to older group. Group
Play is to engage in an activity with another child or children, in which the cognitive goal or
purpose is shared amongst all group members. Group Play demonstrated higher frequencies

61
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

of occurrence in the free play scenario in comparison to structured toy play. This finding is
suggestive of the fact that free play encourages more peer and social interaction, and the toys
caused children to continue the same pattern of play for a longer duration (Farmer‐Dougan
& Kaszuba, 1999; Goldstein, 2012).

Cognitive Play

Games with Rules is to engage in a competitive game-type activity following pre-

established rules and limits. Games with Rules is viewed as an imaginary situation that
promotes symbolic thought. Games with Rules showed greater significance in free play
scenario. This aligns with the statement that during unstructured play, pre-school children
frequently engage in Games with Rules, which fosters cognitive and sociomoral development,
as children construct personal conviction out of the mutual rule discussions with their peers
( Fernie & Devries, 1990; Lehrer et al., 2014).
The occurrence of Simple Pretend Play is when the child engages in pretend play but there
is not enough evidence to give them full credit for pretend play. Simple Pretend Play depicted
significant differences across the groups. This is in consonance with findings by Onishi,
Baillargeon, and Leslie (2007), who explained that in younger children, the type of pretend
play is mainly restricted to object-directed or self-directed pretend play, and as the child
grows, there is an emergence of more complex forms of pretend play. Further, Simple Pretend
Play was most often observed in structured toy play scenario. This could be attributed to the
fact that toys trigger children’s symbolic expression (Goldstein, 2012), and older pre-school
children start pretending with objects more than younger children (Lillard, 2017). Moreover,
the use of specific toys involved during structured toy play could trigger the occurrence of
Simple Pretend Play.
The Complex Pretend Play is with play acts which are theme-based. Complex Pretend Play
had a more frequent occurrence in the structured toy play scenario than free play, and a
similar trend was observed in 2, 3, and 4+steps Complex Pretend Play, Complex Pretend Play
with Substitution, Pre-Planned Complex Pretend Play, and Multi-theme Complex Pretend
Play. Literature evidences that the presence of Simple and Complex Pretend Play increased
as a function of age and that pretend play provided multiple opportunities for the child to talk

62
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

with their peers, solve social problems, share materials, as well as regulate emotions in
response to others (Reichow et al., 2016; Weisberg, 2015). Researchers have also opined that
the Pretend Play was a way to facilitate the development of children’s reasoning skills, social
skills, Theory of mind, Language development, and emotional regulations (Lillard et al.,
2013; Whitebread, 2012).
In terms of the play scenarios used, FP scenario required children to utilise their creativity
and cognitive abilities to play, which provided a vital experience for children to learn social,
cognitive, and communicative skills (Santer et al., 2007). This does not mean that SP hinders
the development of a child; rather, it facilitates the development of self-regulation, turn-
taking skills, and planning of play acts (Healey & Healey, 2019). As children grow older,
they become more sensitive to the context of the play, such as the play scenarios and play
partners (Heimann et al., 2006). This could have led children to respond differently to
variations in the social contexts and modify their behavior to meet the contextual
requirements. Although the study demonstrates considerable benefits, there are a few
limitations. Firstly, in the structured toy play scenario, the investigator provided toys the
variety of toys could have influenced the play behaviors demonstrated by children. Secondly,
the analysis done for the study was manual coding and not software-based analysis so there
could have been a small chance of human error and bias that could have occurred.

Conclusion

To conclude, the overall findings showed that the Free Play elicited more types of play in
all the domains, and children exhibited good social interaction and language use during Free
Play than Structured Toy Play. There were very restricted play types such as object directed
play, complex exploration, and few Complex Pretend Plays observed during the structured
play. Apart from this, the results obtained from this study facilitates the assessment of pre-
school children and in the identification of the children deviating from normal development
or the ones deprived of play. The findings of the present study provide an insight about typical
Play developmental trajectory among pre-school children in the Indian ethno-cultural
background. It also highlights the need for exposure to free play as well as the structured toy

63
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

play in pre-school children.

Profiling pretend play behaviors exhibited by pre-schoolers in school setting will
contribute to the emerging concept of play-based assessment and intervention which helps to
gather information about the developmental deviations of a child in developmental domains
such as communication, gross and fine motor skills in a real and functional context by the
Teachers, Special Educators, Occupational therapist and Speech therapist working in a school
based set up. The study observation helps in providing suggestive counseling/create
awareness among the parents, teachers and professionals about the various developmental
patterns of play types and behaviours as well as the significance of free play and usage of
toys during play among pre-schoolers. Further studies can be conducted in different play
scenarios and play partners as well as different toy combinations. Studying play types as well
as behaviours based on gender and with different socio-economic cultural variation in Indian
context would also be insightful.

References

Abbas, M. Y., Othman, M., & Megat Abdul Rahman, P. Z. (2016). Pre-school children’s play
behaviour influenced by classroom’s spatial definitions? Asian Journal of Environment-
Behaviour Studies, 1(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.21834/aje-bs.v1i1.167
Bloch, M. N. (1987). The development of sex differences in young children’s activities at
home: The effect of the social context. Sex Roles , 16(5), 279-301.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289955
Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The
double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and
discovery. Cognition, 120(3), 322-330.
Cherney, I. D., & London, K. (2006). Gender-linked differences in the toys, television shows,
computer games, and outdoor activities of 5- to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles, 54,
Article 717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9037-8
Coplan, R. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Exploring and assessing nonsocial play in the preschool:
The development and validation of the preschool play behavior scale. Social

64
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

Development, 7(1), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00052

Dowdney, L., Mrazek, D., Quinton, D., & Rutter, M. (1984). Observation of parent-child
interaction with two- to three-year-olds. The Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 25(3), 379–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.1984.25.issue-3
Farmer‐Dougan, V., & Kaszuba, T. (1999). Reliability and validity of play‐based
observations: Relationship between the play behaviour observation system and
standardised measures of cognitive and social skills. Educational Psychology, 19(4),
429-440.
Fernie, D. E., & DeVries, R. (1990). Young children's reasoning in games of nonsocial and
social logic: “Tic Tac Toe” and a “Guessing Game”. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 5(4), 445-459.
Gmitrova, V., & Gmitrov, J. (2003). The impact of teacher-directed and child-directed
pretend play on cognitive competence in kindergarten children . Early Childhood
Education Journal, 30(4), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023339724780
Goldstein, J. (2012). Play in children’s health, development and well-being. Toy Industries
of Europe.
Graham, K. L., & Burghardt, G. M. (2010). Current perspectives on the biological study of
play: Signs of progress. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(4), 393-418.
https://doi.org/10.1086/656903
Healey, D., & Healey, M. (2019). Randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness
of structured-play (ENGAGE) and behavior management (TRIPLE P) in reducing
problem behaviors in preschoolers. Scientific Reports, 9, Article 3497.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40234-0
Heimann, M., Laberg, K. E., & Nordøen, B. (2006). Imitative interaction increases social
interest and elicited imitation in non-verbal children with autism. Infant and Child
Development, 15(3), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.463
Hoffmann, J. D., & Russ, S. W. (2016). Fostering pretend play skills and creativity in
elementary school girls : A group play intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 10(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000039
Jones, L. B., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Development of executive attention in
preschool children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 498-504.

65
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00307
Kelly-Vance, L., & Ryalls, B. O. (2014). Best practices in play assessment and intervention.
In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 261-272).
NSAP Publications
Lakkanna, S., Venkatesh, K., & Bhat, J. S. (2008). Assessment of language development.
Omni Therapy Services.
Lehrer, J. S., Petrakos, H. H., & Venkatesh, V. (2014). Grade 1 students ’ out-of-school play
and its relationship to school-based academic , behavior , and creativity outcomes. Early
Education and Development, 25(3), 295-317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.817231
Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2008). Play for a change: Play, policy, and practice: A review of
contemporary perspectives. National Children's Bureau.
Lifter, K., & Bloom, L. (1989). Object knowledge and the emergence of language. Infant
Behavior and Development, 12(4), 395-423.
Lillard, A. S. (2017). Why do the children (Pretend) play? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
21(11), 826–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.08.001
Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M.
(2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321
Malone, D. M., & Langone, J. (1998). Variability in the play of preschoolers with cognitive
delays across different toy sets. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 45(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912980450202
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?
American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2004-10043-002
McCune, L. (2010). “Developing symbolic abilities,” In B. Wagoner (Ed), Symbolic
transformation: The mind in movement through culture and society (pp 193–208).
Taylor & Francis Group.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2009). Aistear: The early childhood
curriculum framework. NCCA Dublin.
National Institute for Play (2018). How we play.http://www.nifplay.org/.
Nijhof, S. L., Vinkers, C. H., van Geelen, S. M., Duijff, S. N., Achterberg, E. J. M., van der

66
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

Net, J., Veltkamp, R. C., Grootenhuis, M. A., van de Putte, E. M., Hillegers, M. H. J.,
van der Brug, A. W., Wierenga, C. J., Benders, M. J. N. L., Engels, R. C. M. E., van der
Ent, C. K., Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J., & Lesscher, H. M. B. (2018). Healthy play, better
coping: The importance of play for the development of children in health and disease.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 95, 421-429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.024
Onishi, K. H., Baillargeon, R., & Leslie, A. M. (2007). 15-month-old infants detect violations
in pretend scenarios. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 106-128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.009
Orr, E., & Geva, R. (2015). Symbolic play and language development. Infant Behavior and
Development, 38, 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.01.002
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243-269.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2004). The ontogeny and phylogeny of children ’ s
object and fantasy play. Human Nature, 15, 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-
1002-z
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (Vol 24). W.W. Norton &
Company.
Prioreschi, A., Wrottesley, S. V., Slemming, W., Cohen, E., & Norris, S. A. (2020). A
qualitative study reporting maternal perceptions of the importance of play for healthy
growth and development in the first two years of life. BMC Pediatrics, 20, Article 428.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-02321-4
Reichow, B., Boyd, B. A., Barton, E. E., & Odom, S. L. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of early
childhood special education. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
28492-7
Rubin, K. H. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (Revised). University of Maryland.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, C. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), S
Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp.
693-774). Wiley
Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1978). Free-play behaviors in preschool and
kindergarten children. Child Development. 49(2), 534-536.

67
 Megha Mohan, Reenu Celshiya. A & Jayashree S. Bhat

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1978.tb02350.x
Russ, S. W., & Dillon, J. A. (2011). Changes in children’s pretend play over two decades.
Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 330-338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.621824
Sanderson, R. C. (2010). Towards a new measure of playfulness : The capacity to fully and
freely engage in play [Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Santer, J., Griffiths, C., & Goodall, D. (2007). Free play in early childhood: A literature
review. National Children’s Bureau. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/6686
Schulz, L. E., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2007). Serious fun : Preschoolers engage in more
exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Developmental Psychology, 43(4),
1045-1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1045
Singhi, P., Kumar, M., Malhi, P., & Kumar, R. (2007). Utility of the WHO ten questions
screen for disability detection in a rural community - The North Indian experience.
Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 53(6), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/fmm047
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children.
John Wiley and Sons.
Stroud, J. E. (1995). Block play: Building a foundation for literacy. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 23(1), 9–13.
Tessier, V. P., Normandin, L., Ensink, k., & Fonagy, P. (2016). Fact or fiction? A longitudinal
study of play and the development of reflective functioning. Bulletin of the Menninger
clinic, 80(1), 60-79. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/bumc.2016.80.1.60
Thibodeau, R. B., Gilpin, A. T., Brown, M. M., & Meyer, B. A. (2016). The effects of
fantastical pretend-play on the development of executive functions: An intervention
study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 120-138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.001
Vig, S. (2007). Young children’s object play: A window on development. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19(3), 201-215.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9048-6
Weisberg, D. S. (2015). Pretend play. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science,
6(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1341

68
 Development of Play in Pre-Schoolers: Video-Based Analysis of Free and Structured Toy Play Scenario

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Embracing complexity:

Rethinking the relation between play and learning: Comment on Lillard et al. (2013).
Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 35-39. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030077
Whitebread, D. D. (2012). The importance of play. University of Cambridge.
Wyver, S. R., & Spence, S. H. (1999). Play and divergent problem solving: Evidence
supporting a reciprocal relationship. Early Education and Development, 10(4), 419-444.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1004_1
Zelazo, P. R., & Kearsley, R. B. (1980). The emergence of functional play in infants:
Evidence for a major cognitive transition. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 1(2), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(80)90002-7

69