Intellectual Disability in kindergarten: Possibilities of Development through Pretend Play

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect 1877-0428 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.024 Future Academy®’s Multidisciplinary Conference Intellectual disability in kindergarten: possibilities of development through pretend play Juliene Madureira Ferreiraa*, Marita Mäkinenb , Kátia de Souza Amorima aUniversidade de São Paulo, Avenida Bandeirantes, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil bUniversity of Tampere, Akerlundinkatu 5, Tampere 33014, Finland Abstract In this study, we explored how children with intellectual disabilities engage in activities with peers through pretend play, and the effects of this on their development. We analysed video recordings of interactional moments of play activities, aiming to identify how regulations and (co)regulations of behaviour are constructed and carried out between peers with significant developmental differences. Our methodology was based on the Network of Meanings theoretical framework and micro-genetic analysis. The results revealed three important elements: (1) reciprocity in the dynamics of regulating behaviour; (2) improvement in the structure and development of play through interaction with others; and (3) the possibility of the child with the intellectual disability to lead the play, showing that cognitive aspects are not the main reference points for children to engage in joint attention\collective activities. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading. Keywords: Intellectual disability, Peer interaction, Pretend play 1. Introduction Studies in human development psychology have been, for the past century, an important guide for different areas of knowledge. These studies have based professional practices in education, health, and social spheres over the world, setting guidelines for the construction of practices and interventions. The relevance\role of play, especially pretend * Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 44 9779956. E-mail address: [email protected]i / [email protected] / [email protected] © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading 488 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 play, is one of the countless explored topics regarding the process of development of young children. Play has been identified as one of the most important activities of childhood (e.g. Kishimoto, 2002; 2012; Kishimoto & Vectore, 2002) and has been considered a sine qua non condition for human development (Ginsburg, the Committee in Communications & the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2007). The knowledge about play base practices in kindergarten, preschool, and early years of elementary school, and are part of the daily routine of children in school (Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2004). Due to the importance of pretend play, it was one of the foci of our research. In this sub-study, we are interested in the interaction between children when one of the children had an intellectual disability. In particular, the situations of pretend play were significant moments that led us to discuss human development and peer interaction in kindergarten. Intellectual disability is usually recognized as one of the most difficult challenges to overcome in the implementation of an effective inclusive practice (e.g. Plesch, 2010). It could demand curriculum redesign, different practices, specialized intervention and, above all, a distinct comprehension of human development. Even with all the advances in the area and the knowledge accumulated over the past twenty years, there is still the need to explore the process through which children construct their culture and engage in social interaction. Moreover, we consider it important to look into how children construct a pretence and how, even with such significant differences in development, they share meanings in kindergarten, since play is a central element in the curriculum. Therefore, considering the challenge of inclusive education and the need to deepen our understanding on the topic, the aim is to discuss the possibilities of engagement and development for children with such disability in a mainstream context. To achieve our purposes, three issues are discussed. The first is related to the challenge of understanding the process of imagination, abstraction, and pretence for children with intellectual disability. For this, we bring out the necessity of overruling the understanding that imagination is an isolated cognitive ability. We bring data that can help us look into the process of interaction where the play is constructed, and we argue that the emphasis on the dichotomy between cognition and emotions can no longer be applied. The second point relates to the process of interaction itself and the affordances that ‘others’ (peers) could provide for the development of pretence in the setting of interaction. In that sense, we consider how non-individualistic perspectives or, other in words, an Enactive Account (Rucinska & Reijmers, 2014; Rucinska, 2015) or a Social Subjectivity view (González-Rey, 2015) allow new comprehensions of the phenomenon. The third element pertains to our concerns regarding the unilateral view that dismisses the possibilities that children with intellectual disability can engage in and lead collective pretend play, due to a possible lack of specific cognitive and social resources among them. We believe that children with intellectual disability do not just participate, engage in, and construct meaning in pretend play, but also are able to lead the activity, even considering the intellectual deficits that are present in their condition. For the construction of these arguments, we will start presenting, briefly, our theoretical path. Just after, in a proceeding section, we will present the methods used for the construction of the research corpus and the methodology for the analysis. This will be followed by the ‘Findings and Discussion’ section, wherein we will present the data and emphasize the contributions of the new approaches. To conclude, we will acknowledge the limits of our attempts and note our final considerations on the topic for future investigations. 489 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 1.1 Imagination, pretence and intellectual disability When Vygotsky (2004; 2014) described the ways in which children develop their ability to create, to imagine, and, therefore, to abstract the world, he emphasized the necessity of using preview elements (signs or experiences) to compose the behavior or idea that was being created. The ability to relate different elements is constructed and developed during this process and is stimulated according to the social situations the individual is involved in. Therefore, the definition provided by Vygotsky is well accepted by many other scientists that were concerned about this matter. However, when discussing the concept of imagination under the topic of pretence, specifically pretend play, it is not possible to identify the materialization of the imaginative process explained by Vygotsky in his works. The dialectic and inseparable relationship between the individual and the social components that mark Vygotsky’s arguments are replaced by more intellectualistic views on how pretence is originated and developed, invoking mental representation to explain pretence. To make this point more clear, we need to consider Piaget’s (2014) definition of pretence as the capacity to represent an object symbolically. Therefore, by understanding pretence objects and actions as symbolic objects and actions, we can consider the origins of the mental representational process as belonging to the individual. In other words, these symbolic objects and actions are one’s own capacity to explore and organize the world. Even knowing that Piaget (1967) recognized and emphasized the importance of interaction for the developmental process, his theories explain purely how cognitive abilities could be constructed, dismissing the role of emotions and mediation to the process. His perspective marks the requirement of certain neurological achievements for learning possibilities, meaning that cognitive development comes first, making the child available for learning in the process. However, what happens when the child does not follow the same path of cognitive development as the others? Would it mean that this child is not yet ready to explore the possibilities in the environment that requires such abilities? What happens when the child has not yet achieved the stage were symbolic games are a reality when playing by oneself? Keeping these questions in mind, we proceeded to recent studies and reflections on the development of pretence to get a grasp of what theoretical reflections could tell us about pretence. In that field, as pointed out by Rucinska (2015), we find different mental approaches to the origin of pretence. Nichols and Stich (2000; 2003) confirmed that pretence is guided by mental contents, and that children have to gather as many mental models as possible to ensure appropriate behavior, and that in pretence, they exercise those mental propositions. For that process to happen, a complex structure of observed elements, beliefs, and capacity to plan have to be accounted for. The limitations of this explanation pertain to its own complex and inflexible way of elaborating the process (Rucinska, 2015). Moving to a less intellectualistic comprehension, Van Leeuwen (2011) constructed the idea of guide to pretence based on a model account (mental representations guided by imaginings of different forms) that defends the origins of pretence through the existence of a perceptual input (internal representation of motor commands) and the combination of various forms of imaginings, instead of mental representations. The crux of this theory is that pretence requires the integration of mental but also perceptual representations (representations bodily movements) to result in the imaginations that guide the pretence play. The pretence, in his words, is an imitation of the mental images or other imagined contents (Van Leeuwen; 2011). Based on this perspective, pretending cannot be understood only as imitating, as confirmed by Rucinska (2015). Even though Van Leeuwen brings a completely new perspective to the subject, this is not enough to help us unveil the ways in which the elaboration of pretence happens in its full combination. 490 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 The mental representation model assumes that cognitive abilities, in one way or the other, are the guides for pretence, and that pretence is rather an imitation of the life that cannot be lived at the moment. There is, however, a disregard towards non-verbal communication, body expressions, and emotional connections. All these elements that would justify either our beliefs or the motor scheme are present in the experiences that we construct within the environment in the first place. Nevertheless, what we will see is a normative idea that imagination, as an ability present in the process of pretence, has its origins in and by the individual. In other words, for the individual to be able to engage in the activity of pretence, he has to have already developed the demanded ability. The characteristics of that ability and the elaboration of its complexity can be identified throughout the development of the child, taking as a reference their behavior and response to the pretence in action. These assumptions have in common that the development foresees the learning situation (in this case the play itself, in a collective or in an individual way). The child has first to present the cognitive resource to be able to perform the action. What happens when those cognitive abilities are not identified in the child when she/he is playing by herself/himself, but is manifested in joint activities with others? When considering pretend play by children with intellectual disabilities, we noted a lack of literature that could help us understand the dynamics of the development of such individuals. Moreover, the present explanations of how pretend play is structured that are related to human development (Funkhouser and Spaulding, 2009; Van Leeuwen, 2011; Nichols & Stich, 2003) do not seem to offer sustainability to discuss the behaviours and the process that we observe among children. Nowadays, one of the most challenging situations in the educational scenario is the structuring of pedagogical practices that offers possibilities for children with disabilities to develop and be effectively included in mainstream schools. Considering that play is a constant part of children’s routine and acknowledging the relevance of this action to human development, we believe that to be able to achieve such high goals, it is most necessary to deeply investigate how the process of pretence is constructed. We also believe that such a process relies on more than cognitive abilities – it requires and is pushed by emotions, construction of shared meanings, and non-verbal responses that are present in communication between children. When coming back to Vygotsky (2014), we see that ‘the development of imagination and intelligence are different from each other in childhood’ (pp. 38), implying that understanding the process of imagination should not be located side by side to the discussion on isolated cognitive abilities. In psychology, studies that focus on the investigation of development and intellectual disability are often conducted within that fragmented perspective (Pfeifer, Pacciulio, Santos, Santos, & Stagnitti, 2011). In this case, neither philosophical nor psychological approaches offer us the answers that we have been searching for, even if the findings are relevant, such as in the cause of Pfeifer’s et al. (2011), which showed that there were significant negative correlations between children’s motor severity levels and their elaborateness of play, indicating that children with greater motor limitations have diminished play ability. However, this still does not explain how pretence occurs. From our viewpoint, for the educational field, prioritized knowledge is knowledge that can lead to changes in pedagogical practices. It is truly important that ‘how’ and ‘when’ are prioritized over ‘why’ and ‘where’ in research on the topic. Therefore, considering that the above issues and the necessity to increase strategies can enable the development of children with intellectual disability in mainstream educational and social contexts, this work is justified. 491 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 The aim of this study was to explore the process through which pretence is constructed and to analyse the participants and the movements that constrain the phenomenon. It is hoped that the data will not only reveal new perspectives but also contribute to the elaboration of further practices. 2. Methods The method has its basis in the Network of Meanings – or the RedSig (Rossetti-Ferreira, Amorim, Silva & Carvalho, 2004) theoretical and methodological perspective. To explain briefly, RedSig is a theoretical path towards the understanding of human development in different contexts. Its key element is the consideration of the complex way in which cultural elements, social practices, and individuals are assembled, resulting in diverse possible paths to construct meaning and, therefore, in different processes of development. RedSig has its origins in an investigative process from 1994 that focused on the process of adaptation of babies in day-care centres. The complexity presented during the investigative process led a group of researchers to find their own way through different theories, by assembling into a social-historical base (Vygotsky, 1991; 1993; Wallon, 1986) other perspectives and discussions (Rossetti-Ferreira, 2004). In accordance with RedSig, the assumption is that human development happens in a signification network into which individuals are inserted (and which individuals, at the same time, constitute). This network, which is structured by interactions between the individual with others, is immersed in social-historical and cultural elements, linked between them. (--) the human development happens through complex processes, immersed in a mesh of semiotic nature elements. (--) people are found immersed in, constituted by and submitted to this mesh and, at the same time, actively constituting it, contributing to circumscription of possible trajectories, to his development, to other people development and situation they are participating in. (Rossetti-Ferreira, Amorim & Silva, 2004, 23) From this perspective, it is the composition of all these factors that will define the path for development. In that sense, there is never only one possibility or way for development to happen, and there are no rules that predispose the future individual. Rather, development has multiple paths, and for each individual a network of its own exists. To understand this development, one needs to consider the complexity of human subjectivity within and at the same time consider the multiple social/cultural possibilities that compose the phenomenon. Therefore, in regard specifically to the methodological contributions that guided the methodology of this study, the RedSig highlights three important methodological elements in the investigation of human development phenomena: (1) a study design that allows the comprehension of development as a result of multiple factors. The data collection process has to consider that the research will have to apprehend as much as it is possible from the field, in many cases having to combine different resources to construct the corpus; (2) the researchers’ posture as a toolmaker. The pre-structured methods restrict the researchers’ possibilities of immersion in the phenomena; therefore, they have to find their own ways to construct the corpus and to reveal its elements; (3) the data analysis process made in a relational way. The recognized complexity that composes the phenomena has to be considered during the analysis. The contradictions and the unexpected elements need to appear and for that, all the facts, information, and evidence, needs to be discussed in a relational dialectic dynamic. In that sense, the focus of data collection, analysis, and results is on interactions. Depending on the questions of the research and the objectives of the researcher, the interactions are accessed through different perspectives (i.e. between children, between children and objects, between children and adults, between babies). In the case of this 492 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 study, the focus is on the interactions between children, considering that one of them (the focus child) has intellectual disabilities. Another area that is focused on is the interactions in specific moments of pretend play. 2.1 The RedSig Analysis For the analysis of data, the Network of Meanings (RedSig) suggests a careful view of the interactive process that can be done through a qualitative thick description of scenes or a more delicate procedure that involves microgenetic analysis (Góes, 2000). In this study, since a preliminary qualitative description of the data was done, the specific analysis procedures were taken directly with the micro-genetic analysis approach. Specific recordings that allowed us to discuss the topic of pretend play were selected for further analysis. By observing small children play, especially without any adult structured guide, it was possible to recognize how they created their own set of social rules; what the elements were that afforded the interactions to happen; how they communicated their thoughts and wishes; and when the construction of meaning could be identified. In this specific situation, the observation of how children overcome disabilities and of the significant cognitive differences in joint activities that, in theory, demand similar intellectual capacities was the centre of our concern. The analysis process can be described as a careful and meticulous look into every movement, action, reaction, gestures and sound of the short scene selected (Goés, 2000). Each of the scenes chosen from the video descriptions passed through a three-step procedure. First, identification of the initial moment of the scene; second, isolation of the elements mentioned above (movement, action, reaction, gestures and sounds); and third, categorization of possible meanings due to the combination of all those elements. 2.2 The participants The participants of this study were one child with an intellectual disability (Down syndrome), named Ignacio (age: five years) and his peers in kindergarten. The other participants were students from a public educational institutions located in a middle-size city of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. It is important to highlight that in the original research where this data were selected from, there were three focus participants (three children with intellectual disability). Ignacio’s data composition was randomly selected between the subjects. 2.3 The data The data comprised a portion of approximately 75 hours of video recordings of interactive moments between children in kindergarten. Each of the focus participants had approximately 25 hours of video that were taken during one entire school year (2014) in Brazil. The specific scenes that were used in this work were selected from the preview data analysis of this total amount of video records. The analysis offered a thick description of the main topic of interaction. Pretend play was considered an important element to be explored and therefore to be included in this further analysis. 2.4 Ethical issues It is relevant to mention that all ethical measures were taken before and during the data collection. The research was approved by the National Comity of Ethics in Research with Human Beings, through the University of São Paulo. All ethical procedures were respected and the families were aware of and in agreement with the use of the information presented herein. To guarantee that all participants involved directly or indirectly in the research were in agreement with the methodological procedure, terms of free and enlightened permission were used and the research was conducted at no cost to the participants. Regarding possible benefits, at the end of the research, we will provide participants’ families with feedback on the main findings of the study, and deliver a copy of the same. All participants’ nominal identification data will be made anonymous. The video-recording data bank will stay archived in CINDEDI, ensuring the confidentiality of information that could, for some reason, expose participants’ identity. 493 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 3. Findings and discussions Considering the limits and purposes of this paper, an episode with four specific scenes was selected from the data composition to form the basis of discussions. Recalling that the original data are video recordings, therefore, selected moments were transformed into pictures aiming to report the essence of the analysis. The figures presented here had a specific filter added, enabling the identity of the children to be kept secret. In the selected episode, Ignacio is playing with plaster inside the classroom and his pretend play invokes different behaviours in others. Throughout the activity, different dynamics are established and an increase in the play’s complexity is revealed. 3.1 The episode Episode - Date: 21 May 2014, recording n.3 at 8’50’ Context: Children were doing a free activity with plaster. This activity took place at the same time as the pedagogical diagnostic process that the teacher was engaged in individually with the children. Ignacio walked around and between many groups during this activity execution, and because of the difficulties he faced in producing things with plaster, he was acknowledged by the teacher and received attention from the class monitor (Alessandra) at the beginning of the process. This kind of activity is very frequent in this classroom’s routine, and it is seems to be one that Ignacio really likes. Description of scene A: Ignacio is pressing a piece of plaster over the table. The monitor comes to his side and encourages him to make a birthday cake while reminding him of the activity of the previous day. Ignacio looks towards her and immediately put a wood stick over the plaster model. The monitor looks at Ignacio with open eyes and smiles, and, while holding her hands together in a clapping position, she asks what the wooden sticks are. Ignacio looks back at her and claps his hands, whispering something incomprehensible (he is starting a pretend birthday party situation). The monitor says that he should blow the candle. Ignacio steps back and claps his hand again, pretending to sing happy birthday (following his own rules for the dynamics of the pretence). At the same time, the two other children that share the table with Ignacio also engage in the play. The child (Gabriela) seated in front of Ignacio places a small stick in the plaster ball that she was making, and the student by his side (Arturo) focuses on Gabriela’s activity and hums the happy birthday song along with Ignacio. Regina, who is sitting at the table behind Ignacio’s, stares at the dynamics initiated by Ignacio, following them with her look and laughing at what happens. The monitor asks Ignacio to cut out a piece for her, but he moves away from the table and claps his hands again, now accompanied by other children. Ignacio then returns to the plaster, blows at the stick (representing the candle), and smiles at the camera, his classmates, and the monitor. He then cuts out a piece of the plaster and brings it towards monitor’s mouth. Regina smiles at Ignacio. The children observe all this. Arturo claps his hand, sings happy birthday, and places two sticks in the plaster in front of him. Ignacio observes the interactions between his classmates while he rolls the plaster piece with his hands, making a birthday cake again (9’34’’). 494 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 Fig. 1. Moment at which Ignacio claps his hands and stages a birthday party attracting his classmate’s attention. The start of the process. Scene A. In this scene, Ignacio’s actions drew the attention of Regina, who was sitting at the table behind him. She paid attention to his movements without being aware of any intentions on Ignacio’s part to include his classmates in his activities. This behavior regulation started what gave rise to a sequence of (co)regulations along with almost forty minutes of interaction, showing how the elements of one moment continue to affect the group along with the whole activity. What interested us here is how that process happened. The above scene shows the moment at which Ignacio’s imaginative action caused regulation of behaviours, generating collective creative processes and the engagement of other subjects in the pretend play started by him. Ignacio started with what we could understand was a representation of a cake. The monitor suggested that he make a cake (the script was offered by an adult), and Ignacio created a representation of one (using a reproductive direction of human imagination: memory; Vygotsky, 2014). We were able characterize the produced object as a cake due to the wooden sticks that were used as candles and Ignacio’s movement towards these objects. At this point, we can say that the pretence started with a mental representation, but it is the continuity of the scene that particularly concerns us. Ignacio placed the wooden stick in the plaster and looked directly at Alessandra as he started the pretence of a birthday party, clapping his hands and (quietly) singing. The important element here that we would like to point out is the expressions and behavior of the monitor. She did not indicate in her speech the setting for a birthday party, but the non-verbal elements could have lead Ignacio to engage in such a pretence. At the same time that he was totally being influenced by Alessandra, he also seemed to be following his own sense of rhythm. He did not blow out the ‘candles’ and seemed a bit lost about what he had to do (he began looking around as if searching for something). Here, we cannot yet see many different elements of the pretence. The repertoire is quite short. However, the behavior of searching, and the rapid moments of exchange of eye contact and facial expressions leads us to believe that Ignacio was counting on others to build up the movement. We understand these fragments of interactions as evidence of what Gonzalez-Rey (2015) described as non-verbal communication elements that surround the social environments and create the possibility for social subjectivities to open a space for construction of meanings. Fig. 2. The children near Ignacio start participating in the pretence. This can be observed further on in the analysis of the part of the scene where Regina, like her classmates Gabriela and Arturo, regulated their behaviours due to Ignacio’s pretence. From this moment, we can identify how a single idea, expressed more in movements and gestures than in objects itself, allows the construction and exchange of symbolic elements. A social process is thus materialized. Different subjectivities now rely on the same elements to build the pretend play. The sequence of (co)regulated behavior feeds the imaginative process of all the children that 495 Juliene Madureira Ferreira et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 ( 2016 ) 487 – 500 are in the pretend activity, even though they are not yet aware of this and are not constructing it jointly and intentionally. The facial expressions, the movements, and the objects (cakes) become more elaborate, feeding back the whole process and gradually transforming the mentally represented object (cake) into a pretend birthday party scene. Watching the dynamics of the scene, it is possible to conclude that for Ignacio, the responses of his classmates to the actions and the scenario that he was creating was the central element for the continuity of his further actions. The children paid attention (looking towards, responding to) to his gestures, body movement, and facial expressions much more than they did to the physical representation of the cake that he made with the plaster. The experience that Ignacio was representing is what was taking the rest of the children to engage in the activity, providing feedback for new constructions/creations. In this sense, we believe that Rucinska’s (2014) interactive approach to the understanding of pretence is more adequate to translate the process that we see happening: “The immediate presence, attention and reactions of other participants (as well as spectators) affect and shape the type of performance (type of ‘tea party’ played) one is engaged in.’ (p.14). According to the Interactionist Account, ‘pretence is guided directly by worldly affordances and intersubjective engagements, without models or premises playing a mediating role” (p.12). Fig. 3. Ignacio offers a piece of the cake to the monitor, involving her in the scene once again. Description of scene B: Regina rolls the plaster and places two sticks on it (making a cake) and, looking directly at Ignacio, starts to clap her hands and sing ‘Happy birthday to you.’ Ignacio answers by looking back at Regina and smiling, and Regina smiles back and continues to sing. Fig. 4. Moment when Regina continues the pretence and waits for Ignacio’s attention to proceed with the action. Scene B.