Experimental Studies of thePreschool Environment

Kevin Connolly and Peter Smith, U.K.

Concern with nursery education and play­group provision has increased greatly inBritain over the past ten to fifteen years. Thisno doubt reflectsmany changes in our society,economic changes affecting the pattern ofemployment amongst women, as an effect ofthe "Women's movement" itself, and a beliefin the social and educational value of nurseryschool and playgroup experience. Despiteexpressed political intentions (Education: aframework for expansion, HMSO, 1971), theproposed growth in nursery schools has notyet taken place, largely as a consequence offinancial stringency. Other developmentshowever have been sustained and continue toshow some modest growth, notably theprovision of playgroups organised bymothers. Although this was initiallya "middleclass" movement and is predominantly stillsuch, the playgroup as a less expensivealternative (albeit designed for quite differentpurposes) to the nursery school is now wellentrenched. Sheffield is a large industrial citywhich has a number of nursery schools,several day nurseries and a very much largernumber of playgroups. Although these threeforms of preschool institution serve ratherdifferent purposes they nonetheless sharecertain concerns in common, which justifycareful experimental analysis.

For some years now we have been studyingthe behaviour of preschool children innurseries and playgroups. Children of coursediffer, and anyone who makes carefulobservations in nurseries cannot fail to bestruck by the individual differences in thechildren's behaviour. Some children are shyand timid, others aggressive; some areindiscriminately social whilst others form oneor two strong friendships. The nature ofpreferred patterns of play is also subject toindividualdifferences. Age and sex differencesin play and social behaviour have often beendocumented in the literature. From our earlyobservations a feature which most caught our

attention was the differences in what went onin different preschools. These differencesbetween institutions are not always fullyappreciated by nursery teachers or playgroupworkers because their experience is likely tobe limited to a small number of nurseries.However, if one visits a number of preschoolsin a short time these differences are quitestriking and become fully apparent whensystematic quantitative observations aremade.

An interesting example of differencesbetween institutions which became apparentearly in our. studies was the way in which thechildren reacted to us as strange observers.Children in residential nurseries paid us a lotof attention, even to clambering over us,although we did not encourage suchapproaches. In nursery schools by way ofcontrast the appearance of a strange observerhad relatively little impact where the childrenwould examine the observer casually for a fewmoments and then resume what they weredoing. Children in day nurseries were inter­mediate in this respect (Connolly and Smith,1972). Children in different preschoolenvironments also appear to differ in the kindsof play they engage in, how sociable oraggressive they are, or how much theyinteract with adult staff.

Of course there could be many reasons forthese differences and many factors willcontribute to the "characteristic" behaviourpatterns observed. Tizard, Philps and Plewis(1976) suggest social class differences play animportant part and similar evidence has beenobtained by Smith (1977). Theseinvestigations compared preschools withdifferent social class intakes. In ascribingdifferences to social class it is implicitlyassumed that other differences areunimportant. Clearly there are otherdifferences between preschools which even ifnot central to the studies showing social classeffects, nonetheless require careful, controlled

86

PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 87

and systematic study such as consideration ofdifferences in the physical and socialenvironment of the institution itself. Forexample, what difference does it make for thechildren if the adults adopt a structured"teaching" role or a more limited"caretaking" role? What are theconsequences of different adult-child ratios? Isgroup size important? How much spaceshould be made available for a given numberof children? How important is the nature andamount of play materials to a group? Dodifferent kinds of play materials encouragedifferent kinds of behaviour?

All these questions concern the effectswhich features of the environment may haveon the behaviour of the children. These arequestions of considerable theoretical interestin developmental psychology and greatpractical significance in early childhoodeducation. In relation to many of these issuesthere is little previous systematic research.

Observation and Experiment

Observational studies on the behaviour ofpreschool children were an important featureof American child psychology in the late1920's and through the 1930's. Thesepioneering studies developed considerablerefinements in observational methods but theyalso had their limitations (Smith andConnolly, 1972). A pervasive problem whichmore recent investigations have alsoencountered is that of sorting out themultiplicity of variables involved. Forexample, Jersild and Markey (1935) studiedconflicts between preschool children in anattempt to determine the factors influencingtheir frequency of occurrence. They madeobservations in three nursery schools. Thethree schools differed in the age range ofchildren, their social class background, theamount of staff involvement with the childrenand the amount of play space available, toname just a few of the variables related toconflict frequency. Clearly it is impossible toseparate out the relative importance of thesedifferent factors, but in the absence of moredefinitive studies this investigation is often

cited (Swift, 1964, Sjdlund, 1973).The only way out of these difficulties is to

use experimental designs which enable theinvestigator to control these variables. This ofcourse needs greater research organisation butit is feasible in a way which is not usuallypossible for older children in normal schoolenvironments. Even so, great care must beexercised to ensure that the relevant variablesare properly controlled. For example, a studyby Johnson (1935) examined the effects onbehaviour of varying amounts of availableplay equipment in nursery and kindergartenplaygrounds in Michigan. This is the onlypublished investigation we are aware of priorto our own. Unfortunately when varying theamount of equipment she also varied the kindsof equipment made available so that the twofactors are confounded.

McGrew (1972) has reported an extensiveexperimental study of social and spatialdensity in a nursery class. This was done bysplittingthe class in half, so that over fivedayssometimes half the class and sometimes thewhole Class were in an indoor play room. Thisprocedure did indeed vary the spatial density,in terms of the number of square feet of floorspace per child, however it also varied amountof play equipment per child and this was notcontrolled for in the experimental design.Again two variables are confounded. Plainlythere is a need for a further programme ofexperimental research on the behaviouralconsequences of variation in the physicalenvironment in which all the relevant factorsare separately controlled.

To some extent this applies also to thestudy of the consequences of varying thepreschool child's social environment.Although some work has been carried out onthe effects of different kinds of teachingprogramme in nursery schools very little ofthis has involvedexperimental control. Reuterand Yunik (1973) comparing a Montessorinursery school, a university laboratorynursery school, and a parent cooperativenursery (playgroup) found that the totalamount of social interaction, the amount ofpeer interaction and the average duration ofsocial interactions all increased with age. They

88 KEVIN CONNOLLY AND PETER SMITH

also suggested that teacher ratio and agedistribution were factors that enhanced thedevelopment of social interaction skills inMontessori children. A striking feature aboutthis report was an editorial footnote to thepaper: "In view of the paucity of informationavailable on the kinds of issues treated in thisarticle, we are publishing it despite itsconfounding of teacher technique with agedistribution and teacher-pupil ratios". Furtherresearch involving more nursery classes, andhence less susceptible to such criticism hassince been reported (Miller and Dyer, 1975).Nonetheless there is still a great need forfurther experimental studies of teachertechnique and the effects of varying teacher­pupil ratio. At the very least such investiga­tions could provide much neededconfirmationof the evidence from correlation studies andthey may serve additionally to tease out whichof the many variables are of greatestimportance.

A search of the literature revealed only onestrictly experimental study of general teachertechnique in the preschool. This was reportedby Thompson (1944). In this investigationchildren were assigned randomly to one oftwo groups; one group received active teacherinvolvement whilst the other group receivedmore passive caretaking. The experimentlasted over a period of eight months and theresult indicated an advantage to the firstgroup, assessed in terms of constructivebehaviour and social participation by thechildren. However, whilst the results werereliable the study cannot be seen as definitivebecause of the small numbers involved at theend of the programme; eight children in thefirst group and eleven in the second.

The Sheffield Project

Given the paucity of carefully controlledstudies we judged it worthwhile to embark ona series of experimental investigationsdesigned to control as far as possible relevantvariables whilst still maintaining a "natural"preschool environment. This was achieved bystarting our own playgroup in a local churchhall, about a mile from the university. A socio-

economically mixed group of three and fouryear old children were recruited from theneighbourhood. The playgroup was open fourmornings per week from nine a.m, to noonand three staff were employed to run it. Theresearch programme was supported by agrant from the Social Science ResearchCouncil (London). We were able to controlthe nature and availability of play equipmentand the amount of space provided. From timeto time we also were able to systematicallyvary the numbers of children attending andthe typical pattern of involvement of the staffwith the children. At anyone time howeverthe playgroup would appear to the casualvisitor much like any other playgroup, apartfrom the presence of observers and recordingequipment.

Another important aspect of the researchprogramme should be mentioned. Twoindependent groups of children, each groupattending two mornings a week, wererecruited. For most of our studies each groupexperienced the same set of environmentalvariations. All too many reports on preschoolchildren are based on the study of a singlegroup and the dangers of general inferencesfrom a unique sample are considerable. Forexample, the presence of one or twoexceptional or disturbed children may distortthe behaviour of others. Ideally we wouldhave looked at many groups but time and therestriction on manpower resources precludedthis. Nevertheless the replication of the experi­ment with a second group did go a long wayto avoiding the pitfalls of a unique sample.

Methods and Data Collection

Beforedescribing some of the findings fromthe research programme it is necessary to saysomething of the methods of observation anddata collection. Naturally the opinions of theplaygroup staff about the different environ­mental conditions and their ratings of thebehaviour of the children are an importantsource of information. However, the greatbulk of the data which we collected was basedon direct observations of the children. Fromprevious work we knew that the opinions of

PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 89

the staff were important in their own right butonly direct and carefully collected data onhow the children actually behaved would havefull objective validity. In certain cases thesedata were supplemented with tests of thechildren's attainments.

Various observational procedures havebeen described and discussed by Altmann(1974). In making observations oneprocedure which we made extensive use ofwas the "focal child" method. This is whenone child is observed for a specific time.Generally a 40 second observation period wasused; this is short enough to allow a largenumber of independent. time samples to becollected, but long enough to get a reasonablespectrum of behaviours associated with thekind of activity the child was engaged in atthat time. For each 40 second observationperiod the observer dictated a runningcommentary on the child's behaviour into asmall portable tape recorder. In particular theoccurrence of certain carefully definedbehaviours was noted. On the basis ofprevious work just over. 100 discretebehaviour units were defined. These includedfacial expressions (such as different types ofsmile), vocalisations (such as talk to a child,talk to an adult, cry, play noise), visual andphysical contacts withotherchildren and adults,postural and locomotor behaviour (suchas sit, stand, run, climb), object use, aggressiveand submissive behaviour (such as hit, taketoy, flee) and automanipulative or stereotypedbehaviours (such as thumb sucking, clothesfumbling). At the end of each sample periodthe observer noted the predominant activity ofthe child (for example, table play, fantasy playin the wendy house, rough-and tumble play),and also the number and identity of any playcompanions. On completing one sample theobserver moved on to a different childaccording to a prearranged scheme. A largenumber of samples were taken for each childin each environmental condition. Thismaterial provided the basic quantitative dataon which to evaluate the effects of the environ­mental variations.

In addition to focal sampling other methodswere used in some studies as appropriate.

Incident sampling, scanning the group for theoccurrence of a particular behaviour such asconflicts, was used in one study as was scansampling - noting the companions andactivities of each child at regular frequentintervals. Sometimes focal samples of adults,the play group staff, were also made. In orderto obtain information on the distribution ofchildren throughout the space available, plotswere made of their spatial positions over adefined time period.

As one or more observers were present onalmost every session the children almostcompletely ignored their presence. Althoughreactions to the observer were recorded theirincidence was extremely low. We do not thinkthat the observers presence materially affectedthe children's behaviour (Connolly and Smith,1972). Reliability checks on the accuracy ofthe recording were also carried out. Somecategories, especially some of the stereotypicbehaviours such as clothes fumbling were easyto miss and gave low reliabilities. Most cate­gories, including the more important onessuch as choice of companions, activity choice,talking to others, object use, etc. had highreliabilities. We are confident that this methodof building up a bank of data from repeatedshort samples, supplemented with otherinformation provided a detailed and accuratepicture of what went on in the differentpreschool environments.

Full details of the experimental proceduresand comprehensive results for all theobservational categories will be publishedsubsequently. 1 What follows is a sample ofour findings.

Physical Resources

The first of our experimental studies was aninvestigation into the effects on the children'sbehaviour of varying physical resources. Howmuch floor space do preschool children need?Do variations in the amount of play equip­ment and material have more importanteffects on behaviour than space? The amountof floor space available was systematicallyvaried for both groups on different morningsessions. Similarly the amounts, but not the

90 KEVIN CONNOLLY AND PETER SMITH

kind, of play equipment was varied by having1, 2 or 3 sets available each morning. Thechildren were permitted free play in eachcondition.

Somewhat to our surprise the variations inamount of space led to few importantbehavioural differences. The main effect wason the extent of physical activity (see figure 1).

'00

o~. ~g~o Climb; Slide

o Arpt

Spatial Demrtty {...q. ft. per cZlHd)

Figure I: Number of occurrences (out of maximum of 1,728samples) of run. and climb/slide. at different spatialdensities, for the tW'9 independent groups of children.

There was less running about in the smallerspace where the children were more confinedand constrained. In part the childrencompensated for this by using the climbingapparatus more, thus utilising vertical as wellas horizontal space. In this experiment thespatial density was varied to give the childrenan average of 75, 50 or 25 square feet perchild. Subsequently we found evidence ofmore important effects of spatial density.When the average space was reduced to 15square feet per child for a few sessions therewas some increase in aggression and adecrease in general social behaviour (Smithand Connolly, 1977). However, over therange of 75-25 square feet per child therewere no important effects on social behaviour.This is an interesting finding since 25 squarefeet per child is the lower limit recommendedby many Local Authorities. However,different Authorities vary in this, the lowerlimit for some being 50 square feet. Ourresults suggest that about 25 square feet isnecessary and sufficient, at least for part-timepreschool facilities.

Variations in the amount of play equipmentand materials had more noticeable effects,when more equipment was provided it resultedin greater dispersal of the children. Preschoolchildren generally play in small sub-groups oftwo, three or four children and the size ofthese sub-groups tends to increase with age associal skills develop. One effect of a plentifulsupply of play equipment was to considerablydecrease- the number of large groups. Table 1shows that sub-groups of four or more

Number of sets ofplay equipment

Number of instancesof parallel play,sub-groups offouror more children

Number of instancesof cooperative play,sub-groups of fouror more children

First group

Second group

First group

Second group

Significance1 2 3 level

96 59 43 p<.OOl

115 80 56 p<.OOl

56 45 19 p<.OOl

59 38 39 p<.05

Table 1. Frequency of occurrence of large sub-groups in the different play equipment conditions (one,two or three sets).

PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 91

children, whether in parallel play orcooperative play, were only about half asfrequent with three sets compared to whenonly a single set of equipment was available.The overall frequency of social play was notaffected though the size of sub-group in whichit occurred was.

Another effect of a plentiful availability ofplay equipment was to reduce competition.The most popular and generally sought afteritem was the tricycle. Although intended forone child it was common to find two riding onit at the same time and sometimeseven a thirdwould perch on a bar at the back. When onlyone tricycle was provided competition for itwas considerable. This was greatly eased onthe occasions when three were available to thegroup, and similarlyfor other popular items ofequipment. There would seem to be somebalance or pay-off here between reducingconflicts on the one hand (they weresignificantly fewer when more equipment wasavailable) and providing opportunities forsharing in larger sub-groups on the other.

Even more dramatic effects were observedwhen major changes in the kinds of playequipment were made. In some sessions thelarger items of equipment (tricycle, rockingboat, climbing frame, toy chest, pram) werenot put out, the group having availablesmaller items which involve fine manipulativeskills rather than gross physical activity. Onother sessions the reverse arrangement wasmade, only the larger items were available,which meant having tables without jigsawsand constructive toys, and empty wendyhouses. We tried this cautiously butsurprisingly the children appeared to enjoythese sessions tremendously, once theyrealised what had happened. In the"apparatus" only conditions (large items ofequipment) there was more physical activity,but also more laughing and more social playgenerally. Very noticeable also was theimaginative use to which many children putthe availableequipment. Chairs were arrangedin lines to make "trains", toy chests were puton their sides to make "cages", tables werepushed together and prams walked along thetop, and chairs were put into wendy houses

for a "concert". These observations left usfeeling that creative ideas had really beensparked off in the children, and some develop­ments, such as the "chair train", which hadnot previously been seen continued subse­quently in the more usual sessions when therewas a ready availability of both large andsmall equipment and materials. Theseobservations should not be taken as indicatingthat these conditions would be appropriatemost or all of the time but a few sessions withthe small toys removed did seem to lead toinventive social behaviour.

The sessions with only the small toysavailable were less exciting but they did causesome children who would normally have beenwholly engaged in gross motor play to settledown to fine manipulative activities. In bothcases therefore a temporary change in playfacilities encouraged some children to engagein activities which they would otherwise haveseldom been involved in.

Group size

What difference does the size of apreschool group make to the generalbehaviour of its members? This question wasexamined by varying the numbers of childrenmaking up the group between approximately10, 15, 20 and 30. This was achievedboth byvariation between terms (as older children leftfor school) and by variation within terms(arranging for a group of children to be ontheir own on certain mornings whilst on othermornings to be mixed with another group).The latter technique provided the mostcontrolledcomparison, as the behaviour of thesame children could be compared in a largeand a small class.

One aspect of this set of studies was aconsideration of the effects of class size onfree play activities. Here the amount of playequipment and space were always variedcommensurately with the number of children.Confusion with density variables(see previoussection) was thus avoided and any effectswhich were observed were a consequence ofsize per se.

As mentioned above the time sampled

92 KEVIN CONNOLLY AND PETER SMITH

Figure 2: An example of the sociometric structure in (a) a smallclass of preschool children and (b) the same children whenpart of a larger class. Children observed in group playtogether for more than 10 (out of 80 possible) scans areshown; multiple connecting lines indicate stronger associa­tions 0 = boys, 0 = girls.

ships and more small sets of children. This isborne out by quantiative analysis. In the smallclass 50.5 per cent of associations were samesex, and in the larger class 66.4 per cent, astatistically significant difference (p<.05). Inthe small class the mean sub-group size incooperative play was 2.92 whereas in thelarger class it was 2.62 again a statisticallysignificant difference (p<.05). This suggeststhat the large class is more "average" in itssociometric structure; at any particular timechildren are more likely to be in small (2-3)same sex sub-groups which are the mostcommon in preschools. The small class isdifferent in that apart from a few youngerchildren, it forms a cohesive unit. .

The greater familiarity and cohesion in thesmall class may facilitate sociodramatic playwhich depends considerably on well organisedsequences of interaction between children. Inthe case illustrated 151 instances of fantasyplay were sampled in the small classcompared to 90 in the large class, thisdifference is statistically signicant (p<.001).Such findings tend to point to advantages of

IIFigure 2b

!!

C)iI

J!. )IIIC)

~.~

children together with others in a larger class,figure 2(b). The number of lines connectingchildren indicate the strength of friendshipassociations. In the small class thereis a close-knit friendship group with anumber of strong cross-sex friendships. In thelarger class this close-knit group is dispersedand generally there are more same-sexfriend-

Figure2a

observations included records of playcompanions. This allowed sociometricdiagrams of the class structure, .based ondirect observations, to be constructed. It wason aspects of this sociometric structure thatsome of the interesting effects of class sizewere most felt. One example from a number ofpossible ones is illustrated in figure 2. Thisshows the sociometric structure of a smallclass of children, figure 2(a), and of the same

PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 93

small classes. However, in a large class thechildren have more choice of play companionsand we did find some evidence to suggest thatreally close "buddy" relationships are morelikely to develop in a large class. Manyaspects of free play behaviour were unaffectedby class size. For example, the frequency ofaggressive behaviour did not change, but itmust be remembered that the physicalresources were increased commensuratelywith increase in class size.

Class organisation

So far we have discussed only free playconditions in which the children chose theirown activities and the staff have a largelycaretaking role. However, we also examinedthe effects of class size in a more structuredteaching environment. Here the staff wereasked to involve themselves more actively anddirectly with the children. This was arrangedby means of three or four particular activitysettings (such as clay modelling, picturedominoes, and playing house) which providedthe focus for adult-child interaction. Super-

.imposed on the class size variation mentionedabove either two or three of the play groupstaff were actively involved with the children.This produced staff-child ratios of from 3:10up to 2:30 for systematic comparison. Fulldetails of the study and the results will bepublished elsewhere.1

A comparison of the free play conditionand the structured activities condition (passiveand active staff involvement with the children)was also made. Free play versus structuredactivities is an important dimension on whichpreschool programmes and facilities differ.Thompson's (1944) experimental study wasof this kind and like Thompson we also wereconcerned to examine moderately long termeffects of the two kinds of regime. In order todo this it was necessary to sacrifice one of theprinciples used in all the other studies, namelythe built-in replication on two independentgroups of children.

We began with two groups of childrenselected so that they were similar in languageability and intelligence and both groups

having the same age and sex composition.One group experienced a "free play" regimeand the other a "structured activities" regimeover an eight month period. We monitoredwhat went on in the two conditions, that iswhat the children experienced over the eightmonth period, and also made a comparisonbetween the two groups at the beginning andthe end of the experimental period when theyboth experienced the same "intermediate"condition. In some respects this study wasmore in the way of a pilot investigation butnonetheless the results pointed to advantagesand disadvantages of both regimes. Forexample, the group in the free play conditionshowed more social interaction between thechildren and appreciably more spontaneousfantasy play was observed. On the other handof course the structured activities groupexperienced more verbal interaction with theteacher. What implications do thesedifferences have? Our findings suggest thatthe greater peer interaction of the free playgroup enabled them to cope better, eventually,with conflict situations. In the measures madeafter the 8 months experience in the structuredactivities condition, when the group wasallowed more free play, their rates ofaggressive behaviour increased considerably.

On the other hand, the children in thestructured activities class were beingencouraged by staff to concentrate on certainactivities and their attention span (the lengthof time spent on a particular activity)increased as a consequence of this experience.Even more impressive perhaps, the increase inattention span was maintained, even in thepost-experience period when there was lessadult involvement (see table 2). It would seemthat these children had acquired rather betterconcentration skills with objects than thechildren in the free play group, but perhaps atthe expense of a certain social competencewith children of their own age.

Conclusions

The results described in this article are onlya sample of a very large number of findingswhich will be presented in full elsewhere. One

94 KEVIN CONNOLLY AND PETER SMITH

Initial First Middle Last Finalidentical experimental experimental experimental identicalbaseline block block block baseline

Free playgroup 3.1 3.9 3.3 3.3 2.9

Structuredactivities group 3.2 4.9 4.7 5.5 4.7

Table 2: Mean attention spans of the children who experienced the two different preschool regimes. Thesespans are measured in scan intervals not minutes.

general conclusion which can be drawn is thatfor each of the environmental variations weexamined there are both advantages anddisadvantages. A priori one might supposethat increasing physical resources, such asspace and toys, would be beneficial, but as wehave shown there are trade-offs involved.Which is more important, fewer conflicts oropportunities for more sharing and thecooperation that implies? Which should wefavour, a wide range in choice of playmaterials so that each child can choose his orher preferred activity, or a lesser range whichmay serve to stimulate underdeveloped skills?Questions of values enter at this point as doconsiderations of the children's backgroundand present abilities. Differences in the back­grounds and competence of individualchildren may be especially important in com­parisons of free play and structured activities.For children who have plenty of peer inter­action outside the preschool but relativelylittle verbal interaction with adults, the morestructured preschool environment with itsemphasis on conversations with adults andpersistence may be particularly beneficial,especially as a preparation for school. On theother hand children in more isolated nuclearfamilies may have lots of interaction with theirmother but little with peers. For such childrenthe free play environment may haveadvantages.

Many nurseries and preschools have someperiods of free play and some of morestructured activity. This is very probably all tothe good. Nevertheless the relative balance,and changes in the balance of these regimes isstill to be considered. Here the socio-economic

status of the family and factors such ashousing conditions, which in themselves aregood general predictors of the quality of adultinteraction in the home, must be borne inmind. Within free play sessions variations inthe amount and kinds of play equipmentprovided, perhaps considerably greatervariation than .is normally seen, could beseriously considered as a means ofencouraging more diverse and imaginativeskills in young children.

Finally some words of caution. Theprocesses of education are many and diverseand one is dealing with immensely complexand rich interactions between individuals andtheir environments. All too often however,"education" is not seen as a proper subject forcareful experimental analysis. The valueswhich any society puts upon the education ofits young at anyone time are of coursecentrally important. But it is possible toempirically examine the consequences ofparticular practices and opinions and toevaluate their efficacy in ways which enable amore informed and conscious focus on theoriginal aims and priorities. This will not beachieved by a single study or by oneprogramme of investigation, rather it shouldbe a continuing scientific task graduallyadapted to the questions of the day andinformed by the developmental sciences.Generalisations from studies such as thosereported here must be made with caution andmodesty, and they must be subjected tofurther analysis and test. The prospect forexperimental education is daunting butexciting.

PRESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT 95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altmann, J. (1974): Observational study of behaviour:sampling methods. Behavior. 49. 227-265.

Connolly, K. J. & Smith, P. K. (1972): Reactions ofpreschool children to a strange observer. In N.Blurton Jones (ed.), Ethological Studies of ChildBehaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Department of Science and Educat!on (1971):Education: A frame work for expansion. London:HMSO.

Jersild, A. T., and Markey, F. V. (1935): Conflictsbetween preschool children. Child DevelopmentMonographs. No. 21. Teachers College. ColumbiaUniversity.

Johnson. M. W. (1935): The effect on behavior ofvarta­tion in amount of play equipment: ChildDevelopment. 6. 56-68.

McGrew, W. C. (1972): An Ethological Study ofChildren's Behaviour. London: Academic Press.

Miller, L. B., and Dyer, J. L. (1975): Four preschoolprograms: their dimensions and effects. Monographsof the Society for Research in Child Development.No. 162.

Reuter, J., and Yunik, G. (1973): Social interaction innursery schools. Developmental Psychology, 9, 319­325.

SjdIund, A. (1973): Daycare Institutions and Children'sDevelopment. Farnborough: Saxon House.

Smith, P. K. (1977): Social and fantasy play in youngchildren. In B. Tizard and D. Harvey (eds.) Biologyof Play. London: S.I.M.P./Heinemann.

Smith, P. K., and Connolly, K. (1972): Patterns of playand social interaction in preschool children. In N.Blurton Jones (ed.), Ethological Studies of ChildBehaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P. K., and Connolly, K. J. (1977): Social andaggressive behaviour in preschool children as afunction of crowding. Social Sciences Information,16, 601-620.

Swift, J. W. (1964): Effects of early group experience:the nursery school and day nursery. In M. L.Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (eds.), Review ofChildDevelopment Research. Vol. 1. New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Thompson, G. G. (1944): The social and emotionaldevelopment of preschool children under two typesof educational program. Psychological Mono­graphs. 56. No.5.

Tizard, B., Philps, J., and Plewis, I. (1976): Play inpreschool centres - II. Effects on play of the child'ssocial class and of the educational orientation of thecentre. J. Child Psychology Psychiatry. 17. 265­274.

FOOTNOTE

I. A full account of the studies referred to here will bepublished in The Behavioural Ecology of thePreschool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1979. The research was supported by grant number

HR 1414/ I from the Social Science ResearchCouncil, London.

Dr. Kevin Connolly is Professor of Psychology at theUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, SIO 2TN.

Dr. Peter Smith is Lecturer in Psychology at theUniversity of Sheffield.

Diferentes instituciones preescolares divergen enmuchos aspectos: el ambiente social y a veces culturalde los nifios, el tamafio de la clase, la provision deespacio y materiales para el juego, la clase de relacionexistente entre el personal docente y el nino, etc.Tempranas investigaciones examinaron los efectos detales variantes utilizando metodos correlativos. Sinembargo, la plena importancia y las implicaciones deestos factores solo pueden ser satisfactoriamenteeluciadadas mediante estudios experimentaiescontrolados.

En un proyecto de tres afios de duracion levado acabo por el Departamento de Psicologia de laUniversidad de Sheffield, se establecieron variacionescontroladas en aspectos de medio ambiente fisico ysocial en dos grupos preescolares de nifios de tres ycuatro afios, Se estudiaron los efectos de los diversosambientes, mediante observaciones directas delcomportamiento del nino por medio de repetidosmuestreos focales, suplementados, como era apropiado,por otros metodos como muestreos de exploraciones,pruebas de talento de consecucion, secciones espacialesy evaluacion del personal y entrevistas. Se presenta unaseleccion del extenso mimero de resultados.

Un estudio de las variaciones en las cantidades deespacio y materiales de juego mostro que la deJ.lsidadespacial (nurnero de niiios en un espacio determmado)afectaba particularmente a la actividad fisica en granescala. La densidad espacial mostro tener poco efecto eneI comportamiento social a no ser que hubieracondiciones espaciales muy restringidas. En contraste, elaumento en la cantidad de materiales de juego(densidad de materiales para el juego) disminuia losproblemas relativos a juguetes, pero disminuia tambieneI tarnafio de los grupos de nifios y las oportunidadespara compartir las cosas unos con otros, AI crearvariaciones en la clase de materiales de juego, sedescubrio tambien que tenian un considerable efecto enel comportamiento social y creative.

En una investigacion separada, se cambio el tamafiode una clase, de 10 a 30 nifios, manteniendo invariableslos recursos ala disposicion de cada nino. Los efectos desemejantes variaciones en el comportamiento de juegoespontaneo y libreestan ilustrados en terminos deestructura sociometrica, Una clase pequefia trae comoresultado una red estrecha de amistades, con muchasrelaciones 0 amistades tanto de diferente sexo como delrnisrno. Clases mas grandes crean una estructura de tipomedio que tiende a formar grupos subsidiarios maspequefios, del mismo sexo, aunque probablementepermitiendo el desarrollo de amistades muy intimas. Seinvestigaron tambien los efectos del tarnafio d~ ~a clase,Yla proporcion adulto-nifio, en sesiones de actividad masestructuradas.

96 KEVIN CONNOLLY AND PETER SMITH

Otro estudio comparo dos prograrnas preescolaresexperimentales, uno de juego espontaneo y otro deactividades estructuradas. Las condiciones de juegoespontaneo facilitaban mas la comunicacion entreiguales, juego de fantasia espontaneo y una mayorcornpetencia en resolver problemas con personas de lamisma edad. EI regimen de actividades estructuradasfacilitaba mejor la comunicacion entre adulto y nino, asicomo la concentracion en las actividades.

En conjunto, los resultados obtenidos sugirieron laexistencia de un doble plano de ventajas y desventajasen relacion con la mayor parte de las variacionesambientales examinadas. Las implicaciones de los des­cubrimientos dependen de los tipos de nifios tratados yde los valores y prioridades de aquellos queproporcionan las facilidades. Se dice que investigacionesde caracter empirico en la educacion preescolar son degran importancia, en tanto cuanto que haeen posible unanalisis mas consciente e informado de tales problemas.Differentes institutions prescolaires peuvent varier dediverses manieres, Le milieu social et quelquefoisculturel des enfants Ie nombre d'enfants, I'espace et Iemateriel de jeu alloues, Ie type de relation avec Iepersonnel etc.... De bonne heure une enquete examinales efTets de ces variables en utilisant des methodescorrespondantes. Cependant I'importance et lesimplications profondes de ces facteurs ne peuvent etremises en lurniere d'une maniere satisfaisante qu'aumoyen d'etudes experimentalement controlees.

Dans un projet de trois ans execute par la Section dePsychologie de l'Universite de Sheffield,on entreprit desvariations controlees de I'influence de I'environnementphysique et social dans deux groupes d'enfantsprescolaires de l'age de 3 et 4 ans. Les efTets en furentetudies par observations directes du comportement dechaque enfant, soit pris en particulier, soit en generalauxquelles on ajouta des tests de connaissance, desreleves spatiaux, des quantites proportionnelles dupersonnel, et des interviews. On presents une selectionde ces resultats.

Un rapport des variations sur la quantite d'espace etde materiel de jeu, montra que la densite spatiale(nombre d'enfants dans un espace defini)afTecte surtoutune large activite physique et qu'elle n'a que peu d'efTetsur Ie comportement social a moins que les conditionsspatiales soient extrernent limitees, Au contraire,I'augmentation du materiel de jeu (sa densite) diminua

les conftits au sujet des jouets, mais aussi la taille despetits groupes ainsi que les occasions de partager. Ontrouva que les variations sur les differentes sortes demateriel de jeu mis a la disposition des enfants avaientune influence importante sur Ie comportement social etcreateur.

Dans une c1asse a part d'investigation, Ie nombrevariait de 10 a 30 enfants. Les efTets de teUes variationssur Ie comportement social, Ii moins que les conditionsterme de structure socio-rnetrique. Dans une petitec1asse se creent de profondes amities aussi bien entreenfants du rneme sexe qu'avec I'autre sexe. Dans desclasses nombreuses apparait une structure plus ordinairetendant Ii la constitution de sous-groupes de meme sexepermettant aune arnitie profonde de se developper. Onetudia aussi les efTets, dans des sessions d'activites plusstructurees, du nornbre d'enfants et du pourcentaged'adultes par enfant.

Une autre etude compara deux programmesexperirnentaux prescolaires, un base sur le jeu libre, etI'autre sur des activites structurees en repartissant auhasard les enfants dans chacun de ces groupes. Le jeufibrefacilitait une plus grande interaction des enfants, undeveloppernent spontane de I'imagination dans Ie jeu etune plus grande competence aresoudre les conflits entreeux. Les activites structurees facilitaient plusl'interaction des adultes et l'efTort de concentration surles activites.

Les resultats generaux suggerent une ser ied'avantages et d'inconvenients a la plupart ou a toutesles variations d'environnement que l'on examina. Lesimplications dependent done du type d'enfants que I'ona, et des valeurs et des priorites de ceux qui ofTrent cesfacilites. II est demontre que les enquetes empiriquesdans les institutions prescolaires sont de grandes impor­tances, car elles permettent une analyse plus conscienteet plus avertie de telles questions.

In his article (Vol. 8, 2, 1976, pp. 51-57) ThePreschool Playgroups Association, ProfessorW. D. Wall ascribed to UNICEF the sponsor­ship of some playgroups in the U.K. This wasincorrect: the sponsorship is that of the Savethe Children Fund.