Play and dialogical reading

Stig BroströmProfessor Aarhus University, Department of EducationThe Research Unit of Childhood, Learning and Curriculum StudiesStbr@dpu.dk

Paper presented at International Council for Children’s Play, 26th World Play Conference. Tallin, Estonia on the 17 and 19 June 2012

Introduction

Based on the hypothesis that dialogical reading followed by verbal dialogues, drawings and play

contributes to children’s language development, this study examines following problem: Will the

soul of play (e.g. voluntary and independence) be spoiled when children’s play is organized by the

preschool teacher in order to adapt and rewrite the story?

The paper contains three parts. The first part: “Dialogic reading” introduce the concept

dialogical reading and research on the effect of dialogical reading, and also the increasing effect

when dialogical reading is followed by play. Part two: “Play” deals with theories on play and play

related to dialogical reading. Part three: “Dialogical reading and play” presents different forms of

play, which might be useful for dialogical reading. Part four “An example from practice” reports

extract from a course of events with dialogical reading and play. Finally in the conclusion I reflect on

the proposed question: Will the soul of play be destroyed?

Dialogical reading1

In 1988 the American psychologist Grover Whitehurst and colleague described a specific form for

reading for children, which at that time was named ‘interactive reading of picture book’. Parallel

with reading aloud the reader also put questions to the children, and too the children comment the

book and they also ask questions.

During the next decade the method was developed, and Whitehurst tried out the evidence for

this method.

1 This part is based on Kristine Jensen de Lopez and Jette Løntoft, a book in progress Broström, de Lopez, Løntoft (in press) Dialogisk Læsning [Dialogical Reading].

1

Whitehurst has not explicit described the theoretical foundation. However, there is a mixture

of a number of developmental psychology theories consisting of behaviourism, Bandura’a theory of

social learning (Whitehurst & Vasta, 1975), and also Vygotsky’s (1978) idea of zone of proximal

development.

The reason for to develop the method of dialogical reading was the fact, that in the 1990’

about 35% of American children had not achieved vocabulary and sentence structure corresponding

to their ages. In other words they were described as not ready for school.

Doing dialogical reading, the children are challenged not only to listen at the story but they

also are invited to speak about the story, which gives opportunity to make use of the words and

sentence from the book. They imitate sentences from the book, and early research from the 1960’

shows that children not only imitate but they do selective imitation (Slobin & Welsh, 1967;

Whitehurst & Vasta, 1975). If children for example are asked to repeat a sentence, which is more

difficult than they are able to manage, in order to make sense, they will integrate what they have

heard and adjust the sentence at they own level. Based on this knowledge Whitehurst and

colleagues set up a hypothesis consisting of same steps children go through when they develop

communicative competences. The hypothesis is named Comprehension, Imitation and Production

and expresses the idea: first the child is able to understand the word without being able to produce

the word or sentence; next step the child is able to imitate the word or sentence via a selective

imitation (that is not an exact reproduction); and finally independently the child manages the word

or sentence, and he/she is able to ‘play’ with the word or sentence in new contexts.

Dialogical reading is based on the assumption of children’s language acquisition is affected

by three techniques, namely practice, feed-back and scaffolding. And a little more elaborated

(Jensen de Lopez, in press) following four factors can be expressed:

1) The child practice using language – imitation

2) The child offers feed-back which elaborates its language

3) The child is involved in child-adult interaction – communicative activities

4) In general the child gets positive feed-back – reinforcement or recognition

In addition the preschool teacher challenges the child during the reading session, using Vygotky’s

concept (1978) the child and preschool teacher construct a zone of proximal development.

Above understanding is expressed in a more advanced matter by Michael Tomasello (1999),

who shows the fact, that children’s communicative competences is embedded in cultural learning.

Via general socio-cultural skills like imitation, shared attention, categorize, symbolic thinking and

2

understanding of other people as intentional persons, the child becomes able to appropriate cultural

tools and symbols, which is used in the child’s specific world. This understanding is in accordance

with Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural theory, where language is seen as a tool similar to physical

tools (e.g. an axe, a computer). Thus a mental tool can be used like other tools. The child can use

the language tool to affect other persons, to get their attention and also to express own ideas.

However, first of all the child uses his language to make up new cognitive representations, which

transform the child’s understanding and perspectives (Jensen de Lopez, in press).

How to do dialogical reading

Dialogical reading is reading of good quality child literature, fiction. In short the preschool teacher

reads the selected book in small groups with maximum five children. The preschool teacher reads

the book three times during one week, and afterwards each reading the preschool teacher and

children have dialogues about the book. Whitehurst gives thorough descriptions of how to organize

the dialogue with the children and he also describes five different types of questions the preschool

teacher can make use of:

- Questions where the child has to complete a word or sentence, e.g. “he walks uphill and…

- Open questions like “what happens here?”

- What, when, who- questions, e.g. “what is this?” pointing at something from an illustration

- Question which helps the child to relate the story to own life, e.g. “have you ever had

toothache”?

The three reading aloud sessions are different. First of all gradually the children are involved more

and more, and the dialogues on languages, content and illustrations are extended. The first reading

is done without interruptions, and afterwards the preschool teacher and children reflect on the

language, content and illustrations based on children’s questions, and the preschool teacher has to

get all children motivated and interesting and to take active part. In second reading the children are

invited to comment and to start dialogues. Often the preschool teacher has prepared ten selected

words to speak about, and to dramatize. After the reading inspired of Chambers (1994) the

individual child are also meet by a literature conversation expressed by four questions:

- Did you find elements in the story which you liked?

- Did you find something which you disliked?

- Did you find something which concerned you?

3

- Did you find patterns in the story which you recognised and reminds you of other

stories?

After each reading, the preschool teacher and children make use of different forms of aesthetical

activities, e.g. drawings and play. In a Danish version (Broström, Frandsen & Vilhelmsen, 2008) we

made use of six different forms of reflections: conversation, retell the story, re-writing, drawing,

play and dramatization.

Research on effect of dialogical reading

Traditional reading

The general hypothesis that reading aloud has a positive effect on children’s language acquisition

has been supported by several studies. A big numbers of research show a coherence between adult’s

reading aloud and development of children’s language and also later reading skills (e.g. Robbins &

Ehri, 1994; Sénéchal & LeFebre, 2002; Silvén et al., 2003).

More specific a study by Crain-Thoreson & Dale (1992) shows that children between one and

three years, who were used to listen to reading and also speaks with their parents, achieved a more

extend vocabulary expressed in preschool; more in the age of seven they also had an extended

verbal skills and better text comprehension compared with children of the same age, who do not

meet reading.

Further The Bristol Study of Language Development shows a correspondence between how

often children in preschool participated in reading sessions and their knowledge on literacy at

school start plus general academic knowledge five years later (Wells, 1983; Aukrust, 2005).

Among several research (e.g. Heath, 1982), a new review made by Vibeke Grøver Aukrust

(2005) about early language activities in preschool shows an effect on children’s literacy

competences, among other things a relation between children’s oral language in preschool and later

reading abilities. However, this is contradict by the Danish reading researcher Carsten Elbro (1997),

who refers to a review on 31 published investigations (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994) saying there

is shown an effect on children’s general language development but not reading abilities. Probably

the controversy is about how to define the term ‘reading’, how narrow this is defined. But no doubt

children achieve and reading interest and pleasure.

4

Dialogical reading and play

When it comes to reading of literature followed by dialogues research the effect seems to be rather

evident. Whitehurst and colleagues have shown that dialogical reading not only has an effect on

children’s vocabulary but also on their narrative competences (Whitehurst et al., 1994; Lever &

Sénéchal, 2011).

Also a new research done by Lever & Sénéchal, 2011) investigating 40 children aged five and

six shows am improvement of their abilities to structure a narrative and also their spontaneous use

of mental words.

Dialogical reading seems to have an effect on children’s language development in general,

both the increase of vocabulary, language comprehension plus communicative competence. The

effect seems to be increased when reading of the story not only is followed by different forms of

verbal dialogues but also followed by a variation of aesthetic activities. Thus dialogical reading

followed by role playing and drawing has an effect (Anning, 2003; Pellegrini and Galda, 1998,

Silvén et al. 2003; Pellegrini and Galda, 1993; Baumer, Ferholt & Lecusay, 2005); Andresen,

2005).

Inspired of Gunilla Lindqvist and Vygotsky an American study (Baumer, Ferholt & Lecusay,

2005) made op a so-called Play World based on a story, which they preschool teachers and children

captured once a week and played together in this fantasy world. Children’s were forced to reflect on

the relation between the Play World, fantasy world, their pretended world and the real world.

Compared with a control group the experimental group achieved a higher level of narrative

competences.

Based on a Vygotskian approach Bodrova & Leong ((2003) has made up a numbers of adult

guided play activities as for exampler socio-dramatic play in order to promote children’s literacy. In

the program Tools of Mind (Bannet et al., 2008) they describe 40 Vygosky inspired activities which

has shown effect on children’s development. Also a numbers of studies (Neeley et al., 2001) using

scripted play, where children have to carry through dialogues on visits on restaurant, hospital etc.

show an effect on children’s development. Corresponding a study (Klein et al., 2010) on children’s

involvement in both scripted play, free play and re-telling of a story contributes to children’s ability

to use complex sentences, which also Leung (2008) shows. In addition a numbers of play research

show the possibility to create a play-based curriculum. As an example van Oers established an

experimental group of 5 years old children doing a shoe shop in which they sold and bought shoes

5

during a numbers of sessions. Compared with a control group, the children from the experimental

group achieved better grades in mathematics (van Oers, 2011).

To sum up there might be a basis for a combination of reading, dialogues and play. For that

reason the next part will give a description of how a classroom with five to six years old children

worked with reading of fiction, dialogues and play.

2. PlayWith reference to above, dialogical reading followed by play seems to have a positive influence on

the development of children’s language and communicative competences. However, one might ask

which dimensions and dynamics in play contain such a transforming power.

Theory of play

From a cultural-historical understanding of play it is assumed that important changes take place in

the preschool child’s psyche through play. They pave the way for the child’s transition to a new level

of development (Leont’ev, 1981, p. 369). Play activity has a number of benefits. Through interaction

with peers and adults the child deals with signs and symbols in order to represent the culture. Signs and

symbols also influence the development of higher mental functions (Leont‘ev, 1978, p. 59; Vygotsky,

1978, pp. 54-57).

When children enter role-play (symbol-play, pretend play, make-believe-play, socio-dramatic-

play) they make use of symbols. They replace persons and objects from reality with a symbolic

representation. A stick symbolizes a gun or a sword, and they themselves pretend to be a policeman, a

mother or a superhero from the outer space.

Vygotsky states that the play is characterized by the fact “that in play a child creates an

imaginary situation” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 93). The child is able to symbolize the reality. According to

Vygotsky the reason for this is motivation. The child strives for to do what the adults are doing. The

child wants to drive Mums car or fly to the moon in a spacecraft. This is not possible, but the child can

fulfilment its desire through play. “[T]he preschool child enters in an imaginary, illusory world in

which the unrealizable desires can be realized, and this world is what we call play” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.

93).

In play, children are able to master ideas and to take more advanced actions than is possible

for them in non-play situations. The child raises the demand on itself and brings itself into the zone

of proximal development, which Vygotsky defined as:

6

“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem

solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under

adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

This starts new processes of development. According to Vygotsky, not only will the independent

actions in the zone of proximal development support new developments, but the child’s imitations also

have a similar effect. The child is able to imitate actions which go beyond his or her possibilities, but

not without limits.

“In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behaviour; in play it

is as though he were a head taller than himself. As in the focus of a magnifying glass, play

contains all developmental tendencies in a condensed form and is itself a major source of

development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 102).

However, the optimistic idea that play has a leading and developmental function (Leont‘ev, 1978) has

been over-interpreted, and the (often misunderstood) phrases ‘in play a child always behaves beyond

its average age’ and ‘play always leads to a more advanced level of development’ have been discussed

and criticized. For example, van der Veer and Valsiner (1991) argue that play does not in itself

contribute to the child’s development. From their point of view, play has a development potential only

when the play environment has the potential to challenge children to cross their zone of proximal

development. Furthermore, Wood and Attifeld (1996) define such an environment as interaction of

high quality in relation to the task, the playmates, and relations between children and adults.

It may be beneficial to differentiate between two kinds of play. On the one hand, there is a

‘romantic’ understanding, free flow play (Bruce, 1991), suggesting that any play has a developing

potential: just let children play and they will learn and develop automatically. On the other hand, there

is play as a social interaction where the child is challenged and forced to create new meanings and

understandings. Here the teacher plays an active role rather than just observing with a wait-and-see

attitude. This form of play goes beyond the traditional role-play and is called border play (Leont’ev,

1981).

Play embedded in dialogical reading

In my understanding play connected to dialogical reading can be seen as a form of border play. In

dialogical reading the children influence both the content of the dialogues, the drawing and play.

However, also the preschool teacher has an active role. She lead the conservation on the book, she puts

forward questions, organizes both the drawing and play sessions. In some play sessions the children

7

themselves set up play episodes related to the reading, in others the preschool teacher organizes the

frame and the children fill out the frame, and sometimes she acts as play leader and organizes some in

advanced defined play scenes.

However, regardless of forms of play organization, the preschool teacher has to be very attentive

and sensitive on both children and the play process. She has to be aware of the characterization of play

and not to neglect the soul of play. First of all following four dimensions, which according to Lillemyr

(2009) and based on Levy (1978), seems to characterize play:

- Play is intrinsically motivated, feelings of enjoyment, motivations is a strong dimension.

- Play put reality aside, suspension of reality – freedom to imagination, use of creative

abilities. The child knows it is make-believe play. The child cannot fail.

- The child himself has control of what happens. He can take initiatives, chose his role; the

child can decide himself.

- Play is characterized by interactions and communication. The child understands the signal

that “this is play”.

Many play researchers interpret above dimensions like play must be a matter for children without

adult influence, and this has been the general understanding among preschool teachers. Thus free-

flow play has been a hallmark and with reference to Lillemyr (2009), “it has long been normal to

warn against an extended play-directed pedagogy” (Berg, 1992; Steinsholt, 1999), which especially

is emphasized by Heinsohn and Knieper (1975). However during the last decade researchers and

also practitioners argue for preschool teacher’s involvement in play (Broström, 1999; Lillemyr,

2003; Smilansky and Shefatya, 1995; Vedeler, 1997, 1999; Åm, 1984; Lindqvist, 1978; Olofsson,

1990; Singer et al., 2006; Dockett and Fleer, 1999; Wood and Attfield, 2005).

Above researchers argue for the possibility to play together with children without just to push

children towards the educational goal. The point is to play with children not as a “teacher” but as a

play partner. Although adults never can play as a child, he/she can act playful based on knowledge

both of children’s development and the essence of play. According to Leont’ev (1981) the

preschool teacher has to understand and respect the dynamic and legality of the play. Like this

Lillemyr (2009, p. 152-153) states:

“However it is possible to do this with proper respect for both children and play. Many

have also noted that it is possible to find a good balance between safeguarding the unique

value of play for children and at the same time working towards educational goals that

include children’s play, even as free play. For example adult’s involvement in play and the

8

development of children’s independence need not to be mutually exclusive, as it has been

pointed out.“

Based on reading session and dialogues on the story it is possible to create play sessions, which on the

one hand relate to the story and on the other hand go beyond. In play children must be involved in

dynamic and challenging interactions. For example inspired from the reading the preschool teacher

raises new dimensions. This gives opportunities for what Holzman (1997) call creative imitation. This

happens when a child is doing something en a new way beyond its actual development. This is seen in

play where the child imitates a role or sequence from the story and transforms and expands this in new

ways. This is not not merely reproduction of roles and actions, this is creation of quite new dimensions

- and, with that, new moments of learning can appear. In such interactions children not only play

according to a certain theme, but they also expand on that theme. According to Engeström (1987), new

knowledge, skills and actions often emerge through such activities. Engeström names this kind of

learning activity ‘learning by expanding’. However, for this kind of learning to occur, children need to

be provided with the raw materials; for example, participating in field trips, reading quality literature,

and engaging in interesting dialogues with adults. This is exactly what dialogical reading provides.

Using different kinds of play, ‘border play’ or ‘expansive play’ (frame-play, aesthetic theme

play, drama-play) the boundaries of traditional role-play will be crossed. Such kinds of play can be

seen as an activity situated between play and learning. Thus it can be described as a transitory activity

which may have the potential to enrich the individual child, to support the development towards a

learning motive (Leont’ev, 1981).

The child’s transition between the two systems can be facilitated by developing a ‘transitory

activity system’ which mediates between the two systems, ensuring that the result of one system

serves as tool in the next (Baumer, 2003).

Such a transitory activity system contains different elements, and I propose different kinds of

‘border play’. Driven by the use of children’s storytelling (Broström, 2002b), the concept of frame-

play (Broström, 1999), play-drama (Baumer, Ferholt & Lecusay, 2005) and aesthetic theme play

(Lindqvist, 1995) form the basis for the development of a new play concept that combines reading,

literature dialogues, drawing, play, drama and philosophical dialogues.

3. Dialogical reading and playAny role-play entails the exercise of shared imagination and shared development of the theme

(Garvey, 1976). For that reason, older children become more conscious of the imaginary play situation

9

(Elkonin, 1980), the concrete situation they imagine. This makes it possible to introduce more

advanced forms of play which go beyond children’s free flow play (Bruce, 1991). In frame-play,

aesthetic theme play and drama-play, children and the teacher plan and play together, and the teacher

takes an active and challenging role called ‘teacher in role’ (Lindqvist, 1995). On the basis of common

experiences - for example, a field trip and of course a story - they decide a general theme (e.g. ‘What

happens in the witch’s forest?’) or they invite loved characters from children’s literature into their play;

for example, Pippi Longstocking (Lindqvist, 1995).

The concept frame is used with reference to the importance of the imaginary play situation

(Elkonin, 1980). In role-play the imaginary play situation often refers to a situation with only narrow

limits. But creating a frame-play with older preschool children makes it possible to generate an

extended and common imaginary play situation - a shared frame the children can use for a long time.

When the children make plans for the play, and also during the play, the content is expressed, or, in

Bateson’s (1972) words, the text. Simultaneously, the children give signals about how to interpret the

message, the context. These signals help the play participants to understand each other. According to

Bateson (1972), the establishment of the context is a psychological frame. In play with older preschool

children the psychological frame is usually clear. Its function is to include certain messages and actions

and to exclude others. A psychological frame has the same function as a picture frame: it tells the

viewer what he or she should notice. The frame defines the context.

In this new form of play, the children’s consciousness of the psychological frame is strengthened

through the establishment of a real frame. For example they have read a book about a child on hospital,

and then they construct the frame together: they turn the classroom into a hospital with a casualty ward

and operating theatre.

Supported by this physical frame, children and adults imagine themes, roles and actions. In other

words: ‘they share a fantasy, which they collectively construct and modify’ (Fine, 1983, p. 12).

The frame-play contains several elements decided in advance by the children and the adults. Because

of the time interval between the formulation of the plan and realization of the play, the roles, rules and

actions are prepared thoroughly. Often children produce lots of accessories for the play. For instance,

in a frame-play involving ships, the children created an engine, a bridge, a wheel and an anchor, and

also money for shopping in the store and restaurant. In this way, the frame-play is more organized and

more purposeful than role-play. As well, the motives of the two kinds of play are different.

In a form similar to frame-play, Gunilla Lindqvist has created ‘aesthetic theme play’. With

reference to Vygotsky’s book The Psychology of Art (Vygotsky, 1971), Lindqvist (1995) argues for an

10

open and dynamic approach to play, where children’s imagination and creativity are stressed. She

quotes Vygotsky, saying: ‘Art is the organization of our future behaviour. Without art there can be no

new man’ (Vygotsky, 1971, pp. 253, 259). The art dimension is expressed through an aesthetic attitude

and also by combining play and drama. Referring to Vygotsky, Lindqvist argues that drama is linked to

play more directly than is any other form of art. ‘Children can compose the text, improvise the roles

and prepare the scenic accessories: scenery and costumes, which they can paint, stick on, cut out and

joint together’ (Lindqvist, 1995, p. 53).

Together with a group of children, Lindqvist creates a play-world. She introduces children to

specific child literature and sets up a theme; for example, ‘Alone in the big, wide world’. Loneliness is

one of the most important existential questions, especially for small children who have to leave their

parents to go to preschool every day (Lindqvist, 1995, p. 73). In another story taken from Nordic

literature, The Dangerous Journey by Finnish author Tove Jansson, the children cope with the concept

‘fear’.

“One dark chilly morning in February, Fear is lying under the bed. The teacher Karin has put

on her pyjamas and a night cap. She is now Rasmus, a boy about to go to bed. ‘What if there

is something under my bed? I am scared. Why is it so dark’, Rasmus asked. The children

huddle closely together. Rasmus whispers: ‘Who are you? What are you doing under my

bed?’ ‘I am Fear and I am frightened’ he says a thin voice” (Lindqvist, 1995, p. 78).

From this starting point, children and the teachers create a play-world which can last for weeks and

month. The idea is to move between reality and imagination and to establish a creative and playful

atmosphere and at the same time become familiar with the chosen theme ‘fear’, which they express

through monsters, ghosts, spiders and snakes.

Such play not only deals with children’s daily experiences but also supports the production of

aesthetic quality.

Very close to Lindqvist’s aesthetic theme play, Baumer, Ferholt & Lecusay, (2005) describe a

form of play named drama-play. Here three elements are integrated:

- Explorative play experimenting with roles, actions and dressing-up.

- Dramatization involving the preschool teachers and focused on creating a product, a story.

- ‘Reflection via dialogue’, a kind of philosophical conversation with children.

An example of how these elements of drama-play can be integrated is when the Russian folktale Baba

Yaga was read aloud by the teacher and children were shown scenes of the film based upon the tale.

11

Inspired by class discussion of the story, the children re-create the witch’s house and are visited by the

character of Baba Yaga, who shows them how to perform a conjuring trick.

When children are involved in the above forms of play, they not only have fun, but are also

challenged to reflect on their play and to discuss what and how they play. Such play might pave the

way to the development of a learning motive. Achieving a learning motive enables the child to go

beyond passive learning and to become an active learner in school.

5. An example from practiceThe aforementioned kinds of play, frame-play, aesthetic theme play, and drama-play, have the

potential to create an educational play model which is an alternative (but not a replacement) to free-

flow-play (Bruce, 1991) and also to traditional teaching. More I propose, this forms of play to be

one by many ways to rewrite the shared reading. Following an extract from a Danish developmental

research (Broström, Frandsen & Vilhelmsen, 2004; Broström, 2011):

In a classroom with 25 six-year-old students, over a three-month period, a preschool teacher, a

teacher and a researcher worked weekly with the children, divided in three groups, with different forms

of play. The project experimented with activities combining literature, play, drama and dialogues. The

aim was to devise a new educational method which could support children’s consciousness of their

own activity and their ability to reflect on their actions, and, with that, reach an awareness of why,

what and how to learn. The project was not designed to demonstrate whether these children actually

achieved this. The following points characterize play which could serve as a transitory activity system:

1. Reading aloud a short story of high literary quality.

2. Based on the story, teacher and children carry engage in a structured conversation, so-

called literature dialogue (Chambers, 1994).

3. After the dialogue they make drawings to illustrate their understanding of the text.

4. Then the children, in formal groups, are challenged to turn their literature experiences

into play. The teacher has an observer role and also participates as ‘teacher-in-role’.

5. Sometimes the teacher asks the children to present their version of the play/story for their

classmates and teachers.

6. After the presentation, the teachers and each play group hold a structured conversation

called a learning dialogue.

7. During all phases, the teacher and the children have philosophical dialogues reflecting

their ideas.

12

The following aspects of the developmental project illustrate some of the elements.

Reading aloud

With the children in small groups, the teacher read aloud five short books in the series Miss Ignora in

the Water Tower. All five books display strong emotions which all children experience (friendship,

anger, happiness, sorrow, shyness, disappointment and love) and inspire children to participate in

philosophical dialogues which may support the development of children’s meta-cognitive thinking.

The books make up a series with a recognizable structure and a permanent gallery of characters. The

series differs from most traditional series for young children in that the main character develops during

the books. Each book has 21 pages dominated by vigorous and expressive illustrations which support

and expand on the text.

The Miss Ignora books are of a high literary quality. The stories are told in simple, rhythmical

and unsentimental language, and the reader can identify with Ignora. The titles reflect Miss Ignora’s

development: Miss Ignora Explodes; Miss Ignora in the Schoolyard; Miss Ignora and the Starry Sky;

Miss Ignora Falls in Love; Miss Ignora and George Influence their World.

In the first two books, Miss Ignora and her universe are presented. When she loses her temper in

front of her teacher, her best friend Nina becomes afraid and Ignora is sorry. Ignora sometimes speaks

with her neighbour, a fish dealer, from whom she also occasionally steals fish. In the third book Ignora

is alone: her mother has left her, and her father has died in a traffic accident. However, during the

night, sitting on the top of the water tower, she speaks with him. The book also contains an episode in

the schoolyard where a boy, George, scolds her. However, the fourth book focuses on the friendship

with George, and the fifth book tells how Ignora and George come to the assistance of a dog in

distress, and they reflect on the theme of being a person who makes a difference in the world.

Literature dialogue

In order to influence and enrich children’s play we first introduced the Miss Ignora stories in class,

and then arranged a structured conversation around the stories. Some changes to the literary

conversation method used with older children (Chambers, 1994) made it a useful tool to help young

appreciate complex children’s literature and also to observe and document children’s reactions. The

earlier four fundamental questions were included in our literature dialogue (Did you find elements in

the story which you liked? Did you find something which you disliked? Did you find something which

13

concerned you? Did you find patterns in the story which you recognised, and which remind you of

other stories?).

The first day story we read aloud was Miss Ignora Explodes, in which Ignora loses her temper -

becoming ‘crazy’ and ‘exploding’, which upset her friend Nina. The children were also introduced

to Miss Ignora’s neighbour, the fish dealer. Many cats live around his shop.

After the reading session the children were invited to discuss the book. They were asked the

four questions mentioned earlier. In answer to the first question: Did you find elements in the story

which you liked? Several boys said they thought it ‘was cool when Miss Ignora exploded’, while the

girls liked ‘when Miss Ignora apologised to the teacher’ (because of her explosion), and ‘she was nice

to the cats’. In answer to the second question: Did you find something which you disliked? Many girls

mentioned the explosion as a problem. A few other girls also disliked Ignora stealing from the fish

dealer. Some boys also expressed reservations about stealing fish and also about Miss Ignora’s

explosion. But a number of boys said: ‘There was nothing we disliked’.

Children make drawings

After the reading session and the dialogues, the children were invited to write and draw their

reflections related to the two first questions and the debate about what they liked from the book. Some

children made collective drawings in small groups, while other made individual drawings. A typical

drawing was an isolated episode from the story, for example Miss Ignora feeds the cats (narrative

number 1 with the text: I liked Miss Ignora feeding the cats) and Miss Ignora’s explosion in front of

the teacher (narrative number 2 with the text: I did not like when she exploded). Besides these

individual drawings, which make use of the content pattern (Kress and Leeuwen, 1996) there were also

examples of drawings, where more than one episode was situated in the picture, where the narrative

pattern became more visible. And especially in the collective drawings children managed to express

the narrative dimension clearly.

14

Narrative number 1 Narrative number 2I like I dislike

When they had finished their drawings, the teachers invite them to tell a story based on their

drawing, and she displayed the results on two bulletin boards, placing similar ideas side-by-side. This

enabled the children to view their own answers and reflections in line with similar answers. This

session led to a new dialogue, and the third question was asked: Did you find something which

surprised you? Common wonders were:

When they had finished their drawings, the children were invited to write and draw their answers to the

two questions the teachers displayed the results on two bulletin boards, placing similar ideas side-by-

side. This enabled the children to view their own answers in line with similar answers.

This session led to new dialogues, and the third question was asked: Did you find something,

which concerned you? Common concerns were:

- Why does she not have a mother?

- Why does she come to that point that she explodes?

- Why does she live in that strange house?

- Why does she not ask for help from the fish dealer?

- Why Miss Ignora’s father died in a traffic accident: ‘They do not use to die in books’, one girl

said.

The children’s comments formed a basis for rich conversations. Most of the children had reached a

high level of attention by the time they replied to the fourth question: Did you find patterns in the

story which you recognised and which remind you of other stories?

15

Some children were able to compare the stories of Miss Ignora with other well-known books for

children. For example, one boy said: ‘Pippi Longstocking, both Pippi and Miss Ignora do not have a

father and mother’. Another boy said: ‘It reminds me of Superman. That story starts with he has no

father and mother’. A number of boys and girls referred to the story of Sleeping Beauty.

Play

In continuation of the children’s interest in the first three books, the teacher read the last Miss Ignora

book: Miss Ignora and George Influence their World. The plot deals with Ignora and George

becoming friends and freeing a dog which is wedged in a door. Then they talk about how, in doing so,

they had influenced their world.

After the reading session the children were invited to establish their own play events, and they

quickly set up different groups to discuss the play theme, roles and actions. . One group of boys and

girls was inspired by the incident involving the wedged dog, and they spent some time planning a play

with many details.

The characters were Ignora, George, a sour man, Ignora’s friend Nina, a dog and some cats. An

extract from a transcript follows:

Miss Ignora said: ‘Hey, do you like to be my boyfriend’?

George answered: ‘Yes’.

Miss Ignora said: ‘Then we take a promenade in the park’. Miss Ignora and George danced

around.

George: ‘Oh, see an old shack, it’s ugly’, and then he continued: ‘Something is whining’.

Miss Ignora: ‘Yes, it is from over there, inside’.

George looked around and then he said: ‘Oh, it is a nice little dog’.

‘Come here’ Miss Ignora said and then she kissed the dog at the nose.

Suddenly a man showed up from the old shack. He scolded the children and cried: ‘Get out,

now’!

Miss Ignora said: ‘Sorry, we will …’ then she whispered to George: ‘What a sour man’.

The sour man cried: ‘This is my place; buzz off, stupid children’

The two children disappeared quickly, and went away from the place.

Then George said: ‘Oh, I am so hungry; let’s eat’.

George and Miss Ignora established a place to eat. They sat up a table and some chairs

illustrating a restaurant where they placed themselves.

16

They sat in front of each other and ate their food. Suddenly Miss Ignora burst out: ‘Oh, I for-

got an appointment with Nina’.

She left the table and ran over to her best friend Nina who was loudly snuffling. Then she

sobbed: ‘You forgot our appointment’.

‘Sorry Nina’, Miss Ignora said, ‘I was out eating with George. Sorry, should we not play all

together’?

Then they started to skip. George and Nina swung the jump rope.

A bit later Nina said: ‘I do not like this anymore’ and Miss Ignora said: ‘I agree’.

‘Hey’, George said, ‘look at that nice dog’.

Miss Ignora said: ‘It is the sour man’s dog. Let’s return the dog to him’.

George said: ‘I really don’t like to do it, but we have to’.

The three children went to the sour man’s house and they knocked at his door. Then he

opened and snapped: ‘Pooh… you again, toddlers’.

Nina timidly said: ‘We just want to return…’, but here the sour man interrupted her with an

angry ‘Buzz off’.

He closed the door, and when the three children were alone with the dog, Nina said: ‘Ugh

how sour he was’.

‘Right’ Miss Ignora complimented, ‘he was old, big and fat’.

While the children talked together the sour man arrived and said: ‘I just want to apologize

because I was so sour. I would like to give you my dog as a present’.

With this remark the children decided to return to their house with the dog and eat soft rolls

and drink cocoa.

The above extract seems to show that the children had established a relation with the characters, the

action and some of the themes in the five Miss Ignora books. They managed to set up a story line, or

what Markova and Zaporozhetz (1983) calls plot: Children’s ‘reflections of certain actions, events, and

interrelationships from surrounding life’. In other words, they made up a script.

They focused on some specific existential themes, some mentioned in the books and some

they created themselves. Thus their play displayed productive and creative dimensions close to the

concept of expanding learning (Engeström, 1987) and expanding play (Broström, 1999).

17

ConclusionBased on the hypothesis that dialogical reading followed by verbal dialogues, drawings and play

might contribute to children’s language development. However, the present does not investigate

children’s possible language development. The idea was to create a theoretical foundation for a play

approach and also an educational methodological sketch. However in advance it also problematizes

the idea of using play as educational means and asked if too much adult leading will disturb the soul

of play and with that both spoil play and the development dimension. In other words will the soul of

play be spoiled when children’s play is organized by the preschool teacher in order to adapt and

rewrite the story? Now, does my presentation give any answers?

Analysis of the observed play sessions seems to show that, both in form and content, children

reached a more advanced level than what could be expected via free-flow play. Many of the

observed play sessions displayed creative imitations rather than mere reproduction of roles and actions.

Thus they play through some themes from the book, but they also created some themes themselves.

As an example the sequence where Miss Ignora realized she has forgot the appointment with

George and subsequent solved the problem. From my point of view the study does not give any

ready-made solutions, but it opens for the need of more experiments.

It is highly relevant to investigate in which extent it is possible to combine play and learning.

The phrase ‘play and learning’ is inscribed in early childhood education and care curricula and

theoretical programs in all Nordic countries. However still there is a need to define and describe the

relation between the concepts.

LitteraturAndresen, H. (2005). Role play and language development in preschool years. Culture &

Psychology, 11, pp. 387-414,Anning, A. (2003). Pathways to the graphicacy club: The crossroad of home and preschool. Journal

of Early Childhood Literacy 3: 5–35.Aukrust , V. G. (2005). "Tidlig språkstimulering og livslang læring – en kunnskapsoversikt"

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/aktuelt/nyheter/2005/Tidlig-sprakstimulering-viktig-for-laring.html?id=99461 identificeret den 16. januar 2009.

Aukrust, (2005). Scarborough, H.S. & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245-302.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R., & Burns, S. (2008).

Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 23, pp. 299-313. Elsevier.

18

Baumer, S. (2003). Social-cultural ‘versus’ activity accounts of motivational development associated with the transition to formal education. Paper presented at the conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, Finland.

Baumer, S., Ferholt, B., & Lecusay, R. (2005). Promoting narrative competence through adult–child joint pretense: Lessons from the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld. Cognitive Development, 20, pp. 576–590. Elsevie

Bodrowa, E. and Leong, D.J. (2007). Play and early literacy: A vygotskian approach. P. 185-200.Broström, S. (1999). Drama-Games with six-year old children. Possibilities and limitations. In: Yrjö

Engeström & Raija-Leena Punamaki (Ed.) Perspectives on Activity Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Broström, S. (2011). Fiction, drawing and play in a vygotskian perspective. In Tuna, A. and Hayden, J. Early childhood programs as the doorway to social cohesion: application of Vygotsky’s ideas from an East-West Perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars PublishingBroström, S., Frandsen, M. og Vilhelmsen, K. (2008). Læsning og litteratur i skolestarten. København: Nationalt Videncenter for Læsning.

Bruce, T. (1991). Time to play in early childhood education. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Chambers, A. (1994). Tell me: Children reading and talk. Stroud: Thimble Press.Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early readers? Linguistic precocity, preschool language,

and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 412–429.Dockett, S. & Fleer, M. (1999). Play and pedagogy in early childhood: Bending the rules.

Marrickville, NSW, Australia; Harcourt Brace & Company.Elbro, C. (1997). Om lidt. Hvad tror du så der sker? I: Fonsmark, H. (red.), Nu skal I bare høre.

København: Aktion Læsning, november 1997.Elkonin, D.B. (1980). Psychologie des Spiels. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to development

research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Heinsohn, G. & Knieper, B. (1975). Theorie des Kindergartens und der Spielpädagogik. Frankfurth

am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Fine, G.A. (1983). Shared Fantasy Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago and London: The

University of Chicago Press.Holzman, L. (1997). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational models.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Klein, H.B., Moses, N., & Jean-Baptiste, R. (2010). Influence of context on the production of

complex sentences by typical developing children. Language, speech and hearing services in schools, 41, p. 289-302. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (1996). Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge.Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress.Leung, C. B. (2008). Preschoolers’ acquisition of scientific vocabulary through repeated read-aloud events,

retelling and hands-on science activities. Reading Psychology, 29: pp.165-193. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Lever, R., & Sénéchal, M. (2010). Discussing stories: On how a dialogic reading intervention improves kindergartners’ oral narrative construction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology ,108, pp. 1–24. Elsevier.

Levy, J. (1997). Play: The highest form og human expression. In C. Carpenter (Ed.). Childhood in Canada: Cultural images and contemporary issues. Waterloo ON, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Levy, J. (1978). Play behaior. New York: Wiley.Lindqvist, G. (1996). Lekekns möjligheter. Om skapande lekpedagogik i förskola och skola. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

19

Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetic of play. A didactic study of play and culture in pre-schools. Göteborg, Sweden: Coronet books.

Lillemyr, O.F. (2009). Taking play seriously: Children and play in early childhood education - an exciting challenge. Information Age Publishing Inc.

Lopez Jensen, K (in press). Dialogisk læsning, teori. [Dialogical reading, theory]. In Broström, S., Lopez Jensen, K. & Løntoft (in press). Dialogisk Læsning [Dialogical Reading]. København: Dafolo.

Markova, T. A., & Zaporozhetz, A. V. (1983). The education of children through play. Soviet-Education, 25.

Neeley, P. M., Neeley, R. A., Justen, J. E., & Tipton-Summer, C. (2001). Scripted Play as a Language Intervention Strategy for Preschoolers with Developmental Disabilities. Early Childhood Special Education, 28(4), pp. 243-246. Human Science Press, Inc.

Olofsson, B.K. (1990). I likens wärld. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksel Förlag.Pellegrini, A. D., and Galda, L. 1998. The development of school-based literacy. A social ecological

perspective. London: Routledge.Robbins, C., and Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary

words. Journal of Educational Psychology 86 (1): 54−64. Scarborough, H.S. & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental

Review, 14, 245-302. Sénéchal, M., and LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s

reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development 73(2): 445−460.Silvén, M., Ahtola, A., and Niemi, P. (2003). Early words, multiword utterances and maternal

reading strategies as predictors of mastering word inflections in Finnish. Journal of Child Language 30: 253–279.

Sénéchal, M. and LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’sreading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development 73(2): 445460.

Silvén, M., Ahtola, A., and Niemi, P. (2003). Early words, multiword utterances and maternal reading strategies as predictors of mastering word inflections in Finnish. Journal of Child Language 30: 253–279.

Singer, D.G., Golinkof, R.M., and Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). Play=Learning. How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Slobin & WelshSmilansky, S. (1969). The effects of socio-dramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New

York: Wiley.Smilansky, S., and Shefatya, L. (1990)Facilating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socio-

emotional and academic development in young children. Silver Spring, MD: Psychosocial & Educational Publications.

Steinsholt, Kjetil (1999). Lett som en lek? Tapir forlag.Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA, US: Academic

Press.van Oers, B. (2011). Implementing a play-based curriculum in primary school: an attempt at

sustainable innovation. In In Tuna, A. and Hayden, J. Early childhood programs as the doorway to social cohesion: application of Vygotsky’s ideas from an East-West Perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing

van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Vedeler, L. (1999). Pedagogisk bruk av lek. [Educational application of play]. Oslo:

Universitetsforlaget.Vygotsky, L.S. 1930 (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet I barndommen. Göteborg: Daidalos.

20

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of higher psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole et al. Cambridge and Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Whitehurst, G.J. & Vasta, R. (1975). Is language aquried through imitation? Journal of Psychololinguistic Research, 4, p. 37-59.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day-care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679–689.

Wells, G. (1986) The meaning Makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth: N.H. Heinemann Educational Books.

Wood, E. & Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum. (2. Ed.) London: Paul Chapman.

Åm, E. (1984): Lek i barnehagen - de voksnes rolle. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

21