Experience in researching role-playing games in preschoolers
The leading activity of preschool children is role-playing play. It is in it that the child takes on the role of an adult, imitating and performing his social and professional functions. Preschool age can be called the period of the most intensive development of the meanings and goals of human activity, a period of intense orientation in them. In a preschooler’s play, the most important new developments of preschool age are developed and effectively mastered: imagination, imaginative thinking, self-awareness, which as a result allows the preschooler to develop an internal position.
D. B. Elkonin described the structure of a story game as an imaginary communication situation [1]. Within the framework of the game, a real and role-playing game plan is distinguished. A great contribution to the understanding of the game situation was made by L. I. Elkoninova, complementing D. B. Elkonin’s idea of the unit of play, which is understood as “not one isolated role, but the relationship of two roles (role action, causing a response and only because of this meaningful action )" [2].
Considering the structure of a role-playing game, D. B. Elkonin singled out the game plot and the content of the game. The plot is the area of reality that the child reproduces in the game. In contrast, the content reflects the main thing that the child highlights in human relationships. This reflects the child’s more or less deep penetration into human relationships [3]. However, these characteristics are clearly not enough for the tasks that modern practice puts forward, namely, to describe the nature of a particular game and for the typology of children's games.
To become a means of developing valuable personal qualities, the game itself must have a certain level of development appropriate to age [5–7].
Developed play involves creating and holding in an imaginary space “as if”, “make believe” [8, 9]. This means that children must take on roles or assign them to toys, carry out playful and real interactions, maintain a certain plot, use substitute objects, and model the play space. It is such a game, if fully developed, that can set the zone of proximal development, that is, be the leading activity.
The use of play as the main form of work with preschool children is laid down in federal standards, which assume a high level of its development in preschoolers.
Observation has long been the most established method of observing mental and psychological phenomena. Observation of preschool children is carried out both in individual objective activities and in collective play.
A psychologist can organize a role-playing game, a game with rules. Methods and techniques for psychodiagnostics of preschoolers, in accordance with age, should be associated not only with play as a leading activity, but also with interpersonal communication - a new social formation for them. L.A. Regush notes that observation, and, accordingly, psychodiagnostic methods should be developed so that they presuppose the beginning of awareness of one’s behavior and the rules of interpersonal communication [10]. Let us describe the results of a study of differences in the development of play activity in groups of preschool children.
The observation method can give very important results in the study of play activity and behavior of a preschooler. This method has a number of undeniable advantages, it allows the researcher to unfold the specific life of a child, provides many living, interesting facts, allows one to study a child in the natural conditions of his life, it is indispensable for initial orientation in the problem and obtaining preliminary facts. But this method has a number of disadvantages, the main one of which is its extreme labor intensity. It requires high psychological education of the researcher and a huge investment of time, which does not at all guarantee obtaining facts. The researcher is forced to wait until the phenomena of interest arise by themselves. In addition, observational results often do not allow us to understand the reasons for certain forms of behavior. Many researchers have noticed that when observing, a psychologist sees only what he already knows, and what is still unknown to him passes by his attention.
Based on the approach of E. O. Smirnova and I. A. Ryabikova, who made extremely impressive conclusions as a result of a study of role-playing games in preschoolers conducted in Moscow kindergartens, we conducted a similar study in a kindergarten in the city of Artem, Primorsky Territory [11 , 12].
In our work, we tried to present the structure of a plot game through the subject plan, space and time of the game, interaction with partners, and the child’s position in the game. The expressiveness and meaningful content of these aspects determine the nature of the game and can be used to analyze its specific type.
Let us describe in more detail the diagnosable components of the structure of a preschooler’s plot-role-playing game: the method of realizing the play role – a role in action, a role in the plot, a role in relation; game actions, number of game actions – less than 5; the average number of game actions is from 5 to 10; high number of game actions – 10 or more; partner in the game - relationships in the game at the level of observation and/or imitation; playful collaboration; game planning; support for role-playing dialogue; subject material of the game [13]. Use of realistic toys; the use of substitute objects, the use of words, individual gestures, the ability to do without objects. Organization of play space: using real space or ignoring it; space modeling. Designation of the scene: domestic plot; adventure; fantastic [14].
In the role-playing game, the need-motivational sphere of the personality of a preschool child also develops. New motives for activity arise, and activity goals associated with them are set. Qualitative changes occur in the psyche of a preschool child.
The plot of the game is the sphere of reality simulated in the game. The most general typology of plots for children's games includes the so-called. everyday stories, so-called. production stories, etc. socio-political subjects [15, 16].
The content of the game is the preschool child’s specific ideas about the content of people’s social and professional activities, reproduced by the playing child during the unfolding of the game’s plot. The psychological content of the game is the playful modeling by children of professional, social and interpersonal relationships of people and the life events and situations that arise in this regard. Thus, the psychological content of the game is what is reproduced by the child as a central characteristic moment of activity and relationships between adults in their work and social life [17–20].
Structural components of a role-playing game: game role; game actions; playful use of objects (including objects that replace something); social relationships of children developing during role-playing games.
A playing role is a child’s reproduction of a certain social or professional position of an adult, which is expressed by the child in a whole system of play actions performed with the help of play objects and modeling the social and professional relations of adults.
Game actions are game actions that initially reproduce real objective actions, but as the child develops, they become increasingly generalized and abbreviated while maintaining the logic and sequence of actions performed in the game.
The playful use of objects - this phenomenon can be presented both in the form of the use of the so-called. fine toys, and in the form of using the so-called. subject substitution.
Social relationships of children are the experience of children interacting with each other during play, which is of decisive importance in the development of the child’s communicative and social competence and in his moral development. The parameters of children’s social relationships during the game are planning the game plot, distribution of game roles and game objects among the participants, control and correction of the development of the plot and the performance of roles by the game participants.
D. B. Elkonin, based on the structure of the formation of play activity in preschool childhood, identifies four levels of development of plot-role play, reflecting the dynamics of its formation in this age period [21]. According to the scientist, children aged 5–6 years are characterized by the third level; during this period, the main content of the game is the children’s performance of the play role and the actions associated with it. For the first time, preliminary planning of gaming activities, control and correction of role performance are included. The roles are named by the children before the game begins. The logic and nature of game actions determine the role in the game. Social relationships, game actions, game rules are modeled, which are not verbalized, but regulate the fulfillment of roles and are updated in cases of violation of the logic of game actions and their inconsistency with real actions [22, 23]. For older children - 6-7 years old - the fourth level is characteristic: the central content of the game is the performance of actions that reflect social and interpersonal relationships. Preliminary planning of the game and verbalization of all stages are required. Substitution is widely used. Children demonstrate the ability to sustainably retain new play meanings even when using objects as substitutes, which in reality have a clearly fixed objective function. Researcher V. S. Chernyavskaya carried out work on diagnosing the components of role-playing games earlier, although the results of the study had a slightly different goal [24].
The study was conducted in a kindergarten in the city of Artem, Primorsky Territory. Children from the preparatory group aged 6–7 years took part in the study. The guys were organized into two subgroups: seven and nine people. The children were given a set of toys: dolls, pieces of furniture - a sofa, armchairs, dishes, a stove, chickens - and were given instructions: “Agree, discuss and play family together.”
The guys in the first group did not assign roles or discuss the plot. The toys immediately caught their attention. Some of them have already come up with a role for themselves, without notifying others about it. Everyone approached the toy that interested them and began to play with it.
There were five girls and two boys in this group. The girls played with dolls (put them to bed, sat them on the sofa), and used dishes to play with: they prepared food. The role of food was played by beans found in one of the jars. Playing with beans - pouring them into saucepans and stirring them with a spoon - aroused great interest. “Cooked” on the stove. During the discussion after the game, it turned out that there were three girls in the game at the same time who performed the same role of mother, and there was also a daughter and a sister.
One of the boys played the role of dad. In the game he also used toy dishes to prepare food for the chickens. And the second boy was a chicken himself, jumping and washing his wings.
The guys of the second subgroup (five boys, four girls) tried to negotiate: someone loudly announced their role, someone agreed in pairs (who would be who), and someone integrated into the game in the process, successfully playing with the nature of the role. So, one boy took on the role of a waiter when another boy - “dad” - came for lunch while at work. The boy “dad” sat down at the table on which there was a toy tea set, with the intention of “dining,” the boy “waiter” asked: “What will you order?” This is how we observed the development of the plot during the family game; a “cafe” appeared nearby, the services of which were used by all participants in the game.
Another boy invented the role of a grandfather for himself, but other than the fact that he walked “like a grandfather,” no further play actions followed. In this group there was one “mother” and one “father”; they had three daughters. One of the “sisters” was already an adult, she even had her own store. The other two “sisters” helped “mom” in the kitchen with preparing dinner. Two boys were unable to “fit in” to the game on their own without the help of an adult. The main results are presented below (see table).
Having analyzed the results, we can draw the following conclusions: role-playing play remains the leading activity of preschool children.
In the first group, the observed level of play can be classified as the “third level”, according to D. B. Elkonin, when the main content of the game is the children’s performance of the play role and related actions (age 5–6 years). Then we can conclude that this level of game development does not correspond to age norms for game development.
Number of children using role-playing game components
| Structural Components role-playing game | Amount of children, using this game component |
| Game role | 14 |
| Game actions | 15 |
| Playful use of objects | 15 |
| Social relations of children | 15 |
In the second group, we observed actions reflecting social and interpersonal relationships between the participants in the game; there was a weak attempt to agree and discuss roles. In two cases there was no preliminary planning of the game or verbalization of all stages. Children did not use object substitution.
Consequently, we can conclude that the development of role-playing play in the children of this sample is at a fairly low level. In this context, it seems relevant to introduce federal state educational standards into preschool education, the task of which is to organize the development and education of preschoolers through the leading activity - play [25]. However, play is not just a method of teaching preschoolers, but the most important independent activity that leads to the entire development of the child. It seems necessary to convey to educators and parents of preschoolers information about how important role-playing play is for the development of a preschooler compared to playing with toys.
Observation and analysis of the active play of preschool children.
- Observation and analysis of the active play of preschool children.
Analysis of outdoor games.
Number of children: 25 children.
Game name: "Sly Fox"
Educator (I.F.O): Ignatieva Natalya Sergeevna.
Date: 08/07/2014
Progress of the game:
D stand in a circle at a distance of one step from each other. To the side, outside the circle, the teacher marks the fox's house. At the teacher’s signal, the children close their eyes, and the teacher walks around the circle behind the children and quietly touches one of the players. Anyone who is touched by the teacher becomes a sly fox.
Educator: Children, and now I suggest you open your eyes and look carefully at each other, find out which of you is the sly fox, will she give herself away in some way?
Children: (asks in chorus three times at short intervals) “Sly fox, where are you?”, “Sly fox, where are you?”, “Sly fox, where are you?”
At the same time, everyone looks at each other carefully. As soon as the question: “Sly fox, where are you?” - will be said a third time, the player chosen by the sly fox quickly runs out into the middle of the circle, raises his hand up and says...
Player (Vanya): “I’m here!”
All the players scatter around the site, and the fox catches them (touches them with his hand). The caught fox takes him to his house. After the fox catches 2-3 children...
Teacher: “In a circle!”
The players form a circle, the game resumes. The game is repeated 4-5 times. If the fox betrays itself in some way, the teacher assigns another fox. Any of the players can choose the fox. If the fox cannot catch anyone for a long time, you can choose another driver. If the site is very large, you can mark its boundaries.
| Questions for analysis | Gaming activity analysis |
| Game start time | 11.00 |
| Goals of the game, their correspondence to the age and preparation of children | To develop endurance and observation skills in children. Practice running fast, lining up in a circle, and catching. |
| Number of children playing | Whole group (25 people) |
| Who is the initiator of the game | Children |
| Creating interest in the game in children | The teacher carries out preliminary work with the children: reads works of fiction, organizes observations of nature, the habits of animals, the activities of people of various professions (firefighters, drivers, athletes, etc.), watches videos, films and filmstrips, and conducts conversations. |
| Explanation of a new game by the teacher (repetition of the rules of a familiar game) | The teacher reveals the sequence of game actions, game rules and signal. It indicates player locations and game attributes using spatial terminology. When explaining the game, the teacher should not be distracted by comments to the children. Using questions, he checks how the children understand the game. If the rules of the game are clear to them, then it is fun and exciting. |
| Children’s understanding and acceptance of the rules of the game, their implementation, reasons for breaking the rules | The teacher pays significant attention to preparing the attributes of the game. The teacher makes them together with the children or in their presence (depending on age). |
| Distribution of roles in the game | The teacher can appoint a driver, choose using a counting rhyme, or invite the children to choose a driver themselves and then ask them to explain why they assign the role to this particular child; he can take the leading role or choose someone who wants to be the driver |
| Level of children's movements in the game | Under the benevolent, attentive guidance of a teacher, a creatively thinking child is formed who knows how to navigate the environment, actively overcome the difficulties encountered, show a friendly attitude towards comrades, endurance, and self-control. |
| Level of physical qualities (agility, speed, endurance) | An indicator of children's creativity in a game is not only the speed of reaction, the ability to enter into a role, conveying their understanding of the image, independence in solving motor problems in connection with a change in the game situation, but also the ability to create combinations of movements, game options, and complicate the rules. The highest manifestation of creativity in children is their inventing of outdoor games and the ability to organize them independently. |
| Compliance with ethical standards of behavior during the game | Children are friendly, responsive, show mutual assistance towards each other, empathize if they can’t do something, know how to negotiate, but also judge fairly. |
| Presence of negative qualities | Some people want to be first and argue among themselves. |
| The role of the educator | The teacher observes the children’s play and behavior, helps with advice, often takes an observant position, and the selection of the leader is carried out using a counting rhyme. |
| End of the game, summing up | After completing the game, the teacher announces the end of the game in a calm voice. The teacher notes both the positive and negative aspects of the game development of the content of the game, and highlights the most successful children in their actions. |
| Number of repetitions, game duration | Repeat 3 times, duration 15 minutes. |
General recommendations for organization. Observation is carried out over the free object-play activity of children in accordance with developed criteria (the criteria correspond to the five levels of social interaction presented in the studies of G. Craig). Observed manifestations are noted in the protocol sheet and assessed using a point system.
As a result, the following levels of social interaction of children in play activities are determined based on the sum of points.
The first level is “Playing alone.” At this level, interaction between peers is completely absent, children do not enter into verbal contact, and do not show mutual interest in each other. There are no emotional reactions to the actions of “partners” in the game. The choice of toys and objects for play does not depend on what a nearby peer is playing (from 1 to 7 points).
The second level is “Observation game”. The child watches his friend play from a distance and experiences interest, but that’s where the process ends. Children do not interact, while interest in peers is characterized by stability (from 8 to 12 points).
The third level is “Parallel game”. The child plays in close proximity to another child, takes the same toys, and tries to imitate him. He often comments on his actions and his play partner, but interaction has not yet arisen (normally, “side by side” play is typical for two-year-old children). Children do not perform joint actions, although, repeating play actions one after another, they quickly become “infected” with the emotional state of their “partner” (from 13 to 18 points).
The fourth level is “Associative game”. Children interact to some extent: they share toys, exchange, communicate, give each other instructions, but at the same time, each of them has their own plot, their own goal, their own game algorithm. There is no coordination of joint actions and of each individual (from 19 to 24 points).
The fifth level is “Cooperative play”. During such a game, children are busy with a common cause; there is an elementary agreement (“Let’s pour some coffee,” “You put it here, and I’ll put it here”). Many actions are performed together: they roll cars together, build one structure out of cubes, play with dolls together - feed them, put them to bed (from 25 to 30 points).
Recommendations for interpreting diagnostic results to determine the type of interaction and level of interaction in gaming activities.
The type of interaction between a child and a peer, conventionally called “subjective interaction,” is characterized primarily by actions in relation to the partner as a subject. The subjective attitude is manifested in active actions addressed to a friend as a potential interaction partner and aimed at obtaining a response. Children’s actions towards each other are relaxed, accompanied by vivid emotional manifestations, and complementary (children seem to be “infected” by each other’s effective manifestations). Interested communication is typical (comment on a partner’s action, offer to do something).
“Let’s drink tea,” Dasha (2 years 8 months) suggests to Polina, holding out a toy cup. “You take this one, and I’ll take this one - we’ll drink tea, and then we’ll go to the house.”
Children show initiative and a high level of social activity, the desire to demonstrate their success and independence.
The teacher puts plasticine on a tray, Shura (2 years 7 months) says: “I’ll give it to the children myself, I know how to sculpt. I’ll sculpt it myself.” "Look at me."
In play interaction, this type of children is at the level of “associative play”, during which interaction is already taking shape (children communicate, offer toys to each other, provide basic assistance), but at the same time each of them has their own game, their own goal, there is no coordination of their actions. It can be assumed that children of this type also have access to “joint play” (level 5), but the degree of personal and social development does not allow them to move to this level of play.
Egor P. (2 years 6 months) - in most cases, the child’s actions are aimed at a peer with the goal of entering into communication or carrying out a joint play action. The child is not selective, open, and has a positive attitude towards all children. The boy is able to support his peer, but more often he initiates interaction. So, he takes the book, opens it in front of Kolya, asking: “Shall we read? This is a duckling. Who is this?" (Egor copies the adult.) Next, with the same questions, Egor P. goes around all the “available” peers, changing characters in accordance with the illustrations.
In the “Mosaic” situation, Egor first lays out a mosaic in the form of a path on his playing field (his partner was an inactive girl Sasha P. - 2 years 6 months), characterizing the path: “It will be long, long, big, big.” Then, seeing that Sasha is not playing, but looking at him, he offers her chips from his fist: “Here, on you, make the way.” Sasha takes the chips, but does not lay them out, silently holds them in his hands. Then Egor begins to lay out a path on her playing field.
In the “Ride on Cars” situation, Egor first simply rides a car diagonally across the group room, reciting a poem, then Danya 3 (2 years 3 months) acts as a partner - a child who does not show social activity, demonstrating only motor skills when positive emotional reactions. Danya happily bounces on the car, not paying attention to Yegor. Egor, “infected” by his bright joyful emotions, first, laughing, “crashes” his car into Dani’s car (for several minutes), then, having loaded the car with balls from the “dry” pool, he begins to offer the balls to Dana: “Take it to the pan” (there are I mean balls).
The second type may include children whose interaction is of the nature of “object communication.” The child’s actions in relation to a peer more often resemble an exploratory nature: the qualities of the partner are studied, more like an attractive object or toy (touch the face, pull the hair, push, bite). Children's actions are characterized by unceremoniousness and indifference to what their peers feel (physical discomfort, pain). Any kind of resistance or negative emotional reaction from the partner greatly upsets the initiator of the interaction: the child can aggravate aggressive actions, getting his way, or get scared, leave, cry. Such acts of interaction are short-term, but quite frequent - the same children become the objects of this type of communication. Children who make up this type of group are characterized by a high level of interest in their peers, a desire to communicate, and initiative in interaction, but at the same time they are not susceptible to the emotional state of their partner and, as a rule, do not react to it. These children are characterized by a level of “parallel play” - play in close proximity to a partner, based on imitation. The child takes the same toys, comments on his and his partner’s actions; often requires that a peer perform the same actions as he himself - interaction as a process does not yet arise in the conditions of gaming activity.
Yusef (2 years 6 months) is characterized by the fact that he cannot do without communication with his peers: he tells who and what children should do; if he throws objects, then more often towards children, he can push, hug the child tightly, etc. There is no interaction with peers as such, the child either interrupts any play action of a peer, or demands that everyone repeat after him, and gets very upset when it's not. As a result, he acts on his own according to an algorithm that is understandable only to himself, showing active initiative and verbal activity in relation to his peer.
The type of “object relation” to a peer in interaction is characterized by the following actions, reflecting the children’s attitude towards each other: the peer is an interesting object, the actions are indicative and exploratory in nature. These actions are more often expressed in consideration of another child, his appearance, there is visual or emotional interest in motor manifestations, play actions of a peer. The child maintains the position of an outside observer for a long time, while, as a rule, he is susceptible to the emotional state of the partner-“object”, reacts to it, but does not strive for communication or joint actions. There is no manifestation of any activity or initiative to interact. Children of this type are at the level of “alone play” or “observation game”, when the child watches a friend play, but the process ends with this observation - the children never enter into real interaction, while interest in a peer is characterized by stability.
Mark B. (2 years 4 months) watches with interest children who show increased motor activity and are prone to emotional excitability, reacts vividly: squeals when children laugh, jumps in place when they run, but plays the car he has chosen, without trying to get closer to his peer and make contact.
In the “Mosaic” situation, Mark does not show interest in the game, does not act independently - he only watches how Yusef, sitting next to him, puts together a mosaic. In the “Ride on Car” situation, the child rejoices at the car, expressing his joy with emotional vocalizations, while he rolls the car away from other children. Slowly rocking back and forth, sitting on the car, the child carefully, enthusiastically watches how Kolya and Egor ride together, smiling with satisfaction.
The child is not involved in interaction, does not seek to establish it, but at the same time has an interest in peers, their actions and manifestations, he perceives the situational emotionality shown by other children.
As a result of the diagnostics of the characteristics of personal and social development, it is possible to establish a relationship between the types that characterize the child’s interaction with peers, and the level of social interaction of children in play activities, as well as the level of personal and social manifestations in interaction with adults and peers. These data will allow us to draw conclusions about the possible interdependence of the three presented indicators and the conditionality of their development carried out by pedagogical interaction.
