Symbolic Play Behaviors and its Relationship with Language and Cognition in Typically Developing Children.

1
Symbolic Play Behaviors and its
Relationship with Language and Cognition in
Typically Developing Children.

• Presented by,
• Devika M R,
• AIISH ,Mysore
• 
  
  

2

• INTRODUCTION
• Play is defined as any voluntary activity engaged
  for the enjoyment it gives without consideration
  of the end result (Piaget, 1962).
• It combines both action and thought (Tassoni
  Hucker, 2005).

3

• Features of Play

Natural to children
Designed by children
Spontaneous

PLAY
Chosen by children
Voluntary
Initiated by children
4

• 
  Importance of Play

Social interaction
Emotional
Play as a Platform
Language
Motor
Cognitive
5

• Symbolic play (12-36 mths)
• A type of play which involves acting out a
  concept as perceived by the performer. It
  contains rule based play without written lines
  and with few props.
• This type of play includes
• a. Pretentious play
• b. Representational play
• c. Enactive play

6

• Symbolic play development
• Develops in an orderly and predictable manner
• (Piaget, 1962 Mc Cune-Nicolich, 1977 Watson
  Fischer, 1977 Bretherton, 1984).

7

• Significance of symbolic play
• Provides the children with a creative outlet,
  where they have the power to create a fantasy
  world.
• Important indicator of a childs increasing
  cognitive competence. 
• Provides a window on the childs developing
  knowledge of scripts or event representations.
• Temporally corresponds to aspects of early
  language and contributes to language development
  (Paula, 1983).

8

• Relationship between symbolic play and language
  development
• Language development and symbolic play tend to
  proceed in parallel and there is an association
  between the two.
• The manipulation of symbols seen in symbolic play
  and representational abilities is related to the
  development of language (Bates, Benigni, Camaioni
  Volterra, 1979)

9
Figure 1 Hierarchy of symbolic play development
and its relationship with
language development (Mc Cune,1995)
10

• NEED FOR THE STUDY
• Very few studies have examined children in the
  age group of 2-3 years.
• It is important to find what identifying features
  of a childs diagnosis puts him/her at risk for
  demonstrating less sophisticated play behaviors.
• Observation and assessment of play reveals about
  the developmental status.
• Play also provides a functional baseline of the
  childs developmental level of language and may
  provide additional direction for early
  intervention efforts.

11

• However, in the Indian scenario, there are very
  limited studies relating symbolic play to
  language development. Moreover, there are no
  standardized tests for the assessment of symbolic
  play.
• Hence there is a pressing need to conduct
  such studies.

12

• To investigate the symbolic play behaviors in
  typically developing children
• To examine whether symbolic play development
  corresponds with the language development and
  cognitive development.
• To examine whether symbolic play development
  corresponds more with the receptive language
  development or expressive language development

13

• METHOD

14

• SUBJECTS

10 SUBJECTS
2-3 yrs
5subjects (24-30 months)
5subjects (30-36 months)
15

• Age range
• 1) 24- 30 months- 5 participants
• 30-36 months- 5 participants
• These subjects were matched for gender, age
  range, socio economic status and child care
  history.

16

• Tools used
• Three-Dimensional Language Acquisition Test
  (3D-LAT) (Geetha Harlekhar, 1986)
• The assessment checklist for play skills (Swapna,
  Jayaram, Prema Geetha, in progress)
• Assessment checklist for cognitive skills
  (Swapna, Jayaram, Prema, Geetha, in progress)

17

• WHO Ten-question disability screening checklist
  (Singhi, Kumar, Malhi Kumar, 2007) was used to
  rule out any disability.
• Ethical procedures was used to select the
  participants.

18

• PROCEDURE

19

• Phase 1 Investigation of symbolic play
  behaviours
• Phase 2Assessment of language and cognitive
  skills.

20

• PHASE - 1

21
TWO PLAY SESSIONS
TWO PLAY SITUATIONS
FREE PLAY
STRUCTURED PLAY
STANDARD TOY SETS
BASKET-A
BASKET-B
22

• FREE PLAY
• BASKET -A BASKET-B

-two small human figures -small plastic
animals -one baby doll, a brush -a comb,
kitchen set -chair, table, cot, -a spoon, a
cup and saucer -furniture set
-large bus -small auto -plate -knife
blocks and sticks
-two small blankets, -two little doll house
figures -small plastic farm animals -two baby
dolls, - stuffed bear -stuffed rabbit -
baby bottle - spoon, a plate - brush
-pillow - blocks, -
jar lid , -quilt sticks

The two basket design is planned in order to
examine test-retest reliability of play behavior
23
STRUCTURED PLAY

• Set 1 doll, baby bottle, quilt, stick
• Set 2 stuffed bear, brush, blanket, stick.
• Set 3 two small human figures, horse,
• soap, block
• Set 4 lorry, doll, screwdriver, two
• blocks, stick.
• A stick or a block as an item to
• be transformed

24

• These toys have been selected on the basis of
  literature support (Rescorla and Goosens, 1992)
  with suitable modifications for Indian context.

25
FIRST SESSION
26

• Free play with
  basket A

Basket -A
10 Min. duration
The mother was seated in the room but
was asked not to intervene in the
childs play.
27

• Structured play with toy sets

STRUCTURED PLAY
5 Min. DURATION
4 SETS OF TOYS
Set 1 doll, baby bottle, quilt, stick Set 2
stuffed bear, brush, blanket,
stick. Set 3 two small human figures,
horse, soap, block Set 4 lorry, doll,
screwdriver, two blocks, stick. A
stick or a block as an item to be
transformed

28

• SECOND SESSION
• The second session was recorded a week after
  the initial visit.

29

• Free play with
  basket B

10 Min. Duration
Basket -B
The same procedure as in session 1 will be
carried out.
30

• Structured play with toy sets

INSTRUCTIONS
TOY SETS
MODELLING
31

• All these sessions mentioned above were
  videotaped.

32

• PHASE-2

33

• Three-Dimensional Language Acquisition Test
  (3D-LAT) (Geetha Harlekhar, 1986)
• Assessment checklist for cognitive skills
  (Swapna, Jayaram, Prema, Geetha, in progress).

34

• Analysis
• Data coding for free play
• Various types of play behaviors exhibited
  during free play with basket A B were coded
  from the videotape for frequency of the specified
  play behaviour.
• It was marked in the tally sheet and
  documented descriptively.

35

• The coding categories include
• A variety of o non-pretend behaviors such as
• Grouping
• Manipulation
• Wandering and social interaction.
• Three basic categories of functional and/or
  pretend play
• Functional conventional,
• Functional to self, and
• Functional to other.
• Two types of elaborate or advanced play
• Symbolism sub classified into three types.
• Sequences sub classified into four types

36

• Data coding for structured play
• Scoring
• Spontaneous occurrence of a desired behavior in
  session 1- 3
• Occurrence of a desired behavior in response to
  instruction in session 2- 2
• Occurrence of a desired behavior following
  modeling in session 2- 1
• Non occurrence of a desired behavior in session 1
  or 2- 0
• Maximum score that can be obtained 5
  (Spontaneous display in session 1 and display
  response to instruction in session 2)

37

• RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

38
Aggregate of free play behaviors overall (AB)
and by individual baskets A and B).
Behaviors Baskets Scores/Frequency of response across all subjects Scores/Frequency of response in 2 2.6 yrs Scores/Frequency of response in 2.6 3 yrs
Unoccupied
Unoccupied
Unoccupied A B 11 4 7
Manipulation
Manipulation
Manipulation A B 82 36 46
Grouping
Grouping
Grouping A B 48 17 31
Social
Social
Social A B 17 7 10
39
Free Play Analysis
Behaviors Baskets Scores/Frequency of response across all subjects Scores/Frequency of response in 2 2.6 yrs Scores/Frequency of response in 2.6 3 yrs
Functional/ Conventional
Functional/ Conventional
Functional/ Conventional A B 126 51 75
Functional to Self
Functional to Self
Functional to Self A B 36 14 22
Functional to Other
Functional to Other
Functional to Other A B 86 35 51
Sequence ABCD
Sequence ABCD
Sequence ABCD A B 45 15 30
40
Free Play Analysis
Behaviors Baskets Scores/Frequency of response across all subjects Scores/Frequency of response in 2 2.6 yrs Scores/Frequency of response in 2.6 3 yrs
Symbol ABC A
Symbol ABC B 19 9 10
Symbol ABC A B 29 13 16
Verbal Symbol ABC A
Verbal Symbol ABC B
Verbal Symbol ABC A B 5 2 3
41
Table 2 Mean number of targeted responses in
structured play session I vs. structured play
session II - instruction/modeling) across
subjects
42
Mean weighted scores of different play behaviours
during structured play across sets.
43
Relationship of Play With Language and Cognition
3D - LAT 3D - LAT 3D - LAT Assessment Checklist Assessment Checklist
RLA ELA CLA PA CA
RLA - .655 .623 .420 .421
ELA .665 - .702 p.05 .612 .639
CLA .623 .702 p.05 .749 p.05 .778
PA .420 .612 .749 - .835 0.005
p lt .05 level, p lt .01 level, Receptive
Language Age, ELA Expressive Language Age, CLA
Cognitive Language Age, PA Play Age, CA-
Cognitive Age.
44
Correlation between Receptive Language,
Expressive Language and Cognitive Language
Test R R Square Adjusted R Square STD Error of Estimate
Cognition Checklist 0.835 0.698 0.655 1.92665
45

• IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
• It is expected that the findings of the study
  will provide an insight into the relationship
  between the symbolic play skills and language
  development children. It will help us to refine
  our understanding of both normative and atypical
  symbolic development.
• The study has important implication for early
  childhood assessment and intervention alsoEarly
  identification

46

• The findings of such research might contribute
  to theories of language development as well as
  assist clinicians and public planners in
  designing accurate screening procedures.
• Further research -study can be undertaken in
  different other age groups by incorporating more
  number of subjects in each age group.

47

• A longitudinal study of children also could throw
  light into the pattern of changes that occur with
  respect to the skills and their temporal
  correspondences in the various developmental
  stages.
• The results may reveal the use of structured play
  assessment as a valid, clinical tool for
  differential diagnosis of various communication
  disorders.

48

• REFERENCES
• Bretherton, I. (1984) Representing the social
  world in symbolic play Reality and fantasy. In
  I. Bretherton (Ed), Symbolic play- The
  development of social understanding. Orlando ,
  FLAcademic Press.
• Brown, J. (1975). Symbolic play in normal and
  language impaired children. Paper presented at
  the American Speech- Language- Hearing-
  Association Annual Convention, Washington, DC.
• Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton. I.,Camaioni,
  L., Volterra, V.(1979).The emergence of
  symbolscognition and communcation in infancy.
  New YorkAcademic Press.
• Chick Hsia Yu Kitty (2000) Correlation between
  symbolic play and language in normal developing
  Cantonese speaking children. Dissertation
  submitted as a part of partial fulfillment for
  the bachelor of science, speech and hearing
  sciences. University of Honk kong .

49

• Cooper, J., Moodley, M., Reynell, J. (1978)
  Helping language development A developmental
  program with children with early language
  handicaps. St. Martins Press.
• Geetha Harlekhar (1986) Three dimensional
  language acquisition test (3D-LAT) unpublished
  dissertation, speech and hearing. Mysore
  university
• Lovell, K., Hoyle, H., Siddell, M.Q.(1968). A
  study of some aspects of the play and language of
  the young children with delayed speech. Journal
  of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 9, 41-50.
• Lombardino.L., Stein J., Kricos P., Wolf,
  M.(1986). Play diversity and structural
  relationship in the play and language of language
  impaired and language-normal preschoolers.
  Preliminary data. Journal of Communication
  Disorders, 19, 475-489.
• Lyytinen ,P.,Laakso.M.(1997).Language and
  symbolic play in toddlers. Journal of Behavioural
  Development, 21(2),289-302.
• Mc Cune-Nicolich, L. (1977). Beyond sensorimotor
  intelligence Assessment of symbolic maturity
  through analysis of pretend play. Merrill Palmer
  Quarterly, 243(2), 89-101. Michael,W.C.(2003)
  Developmental Assessment of Play A Model for
  Early Intervention Communication Disorders
  Quarterly 24175-183.
• Nelson, K. (1986). Event Knowledge Structure
  and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ
  Lawrence Erlbaum.

50
Thank you
51

• Appendix I
• List of play behaviors coded during free
  play
• Non pretend behaviors
• Wandering/unoccupied Behaviours not involving
  any active interaction with objects or
  individuals in the room.
• Manipulation/handling- Involves childs visual
  and kinesthetic exploration and manipulation of
  toys.
• Grouping Placing two or more like objects
  together in a group, line or stack.

52

• Functional/pretend play
• Functional conventional (Presymbolic scheme)
  Behaviours indicating that child knows the
  functionally appropriate use of an object.
• Functional to self (Autosymbolic scheme)
  Functionally appropriate use of an object on
  oneself.
• Functional to other (Decentered symbolic games)
  Involves performance of a pretend action upon a
  recipient other than self.

53

• Elaborate/advanced play
• Symbolism Type A Substitution of one object for
  another. Using objects in a manner different from
  its intended functional use.
• Symbolism type B Pretending to use an absent
  object, creating an absent person, or referring
  to an absent substance.
• Symbolism Type C Animating the doll or animal
  as an independent and active agent.

54

• Sequence Type A Two or more consecutive but
  different actions, one or more which is
  functional conventional.
• Sequence Type B Same recipients (two or more
  consecutive and) but different actions.
• Sequence type C Two or more recipients /( two or
  more consecutive and) same actions.
• Sequence Type D Two or more recipients/(two or
  more consecutive but ) different actions.

55

• Verbalized elaborate/advanced play
• Verbal Transformation Verbal substitution of one
  object for another.
• Verbal creation of object Verbally creating an
  absent person or object by referring to it.
• Verbal animation Verbally creating action,
  animating an object or toy with no accompanying
  action.

56

• Social interaction
• Child initiated social games Play behaviour
  involving an adult in the room without functional
  or symbolic use of an object.
• Child-initiated social interaction Active or
  verbal non- play behaviour initiated by the child
  and directed by an adult.

57
(No Transcript)
58

• It will help us to refine our understanding of
  both normative and atypical symbolic development
  and to clarify issues in developmental difference
  the disordered population.
• This study will also lead to strengthening of the
  fact that in children with language disorders ,
  it is necessary to consider assessments of
  symbolic play and nonverbal ability along with
  expressive and receptive language, which will
  help speech-language pathologists to arrive at an
  accurate and appropriate diagnosis.

59
Mean number of targeted responses in structured
play (session I) vs. structured play (session II
- instruction/modeling) across two age groups.
(30-36mths)
60
Mean number of targeted responses in structured
play (session I) vs. structured play (session II
- instruction/modeling) across two age groups.
(24-30 mths)
61

• Symbolic Play Development (Patterson and Westby,
  1998)

AGE PROPS THEMES ORGANIZATION ROLES LANGUAGE DURING PLAY
18 months Uses one realistic object at a time Familiar everyday activities in which child is active participant Short, isolated Autosymbolic pretend Language used to get and maintain toys and seek assistance.
22 months Uses two realistic objects at a time Familiar activities that care givers do. Combines two related toys or performs actions on two people Acts on dolls and others. Occasional comment on toy or action
24 months Uses several realistic objects Multischeme combinations of steps. Talks to doll briefly describes dolls actions.
3 years Sequence of multischeme events, brief role play with peers. Talks to doll in response to dolls actions. Comment on what they have done or what they will do next.
4years Imaginary props Familiar fantasy things. Planned play events. Handles 2 or more dolls in complementary roles. Uses language to plan and narrate the story line