Abstract
In an article published in the Journal of Gifted Child Quarterly, Beisser, Gillespie, and Thacker provide a study investigating the subject of play among talented and gifted students (TAG) in the fifth and sixth grades. The authors’ aim was to determine the role of play in the cognitive, social, and physical development among students drawn from Midwest urban, suburban, and rural schools. This paper presents the summary and a critical analysis of the article.
Summary
Play is an important aspect of children’s developmental process. When children miss an opportunity to engage sufficiently in playing, the role of play in influencing their growth in terms of social, emotional, cognitive, and development is lost (Beisser et al., 2013, p.26). According to the authors, this significance of play has been identified among young children in general school settings. For talented and gifted students, the authors claim that there is no research conducted specifically to address the contribution of play in children’s social, cognitive, and physical development (Beisser et al., 2013, p.26). Hence, the authors utilised this gap to conduct a research on the significance of play among upper grade students in Midwest schools. However, they are quick to note that studies exist on the contribution of play in terms of stress relief among upper levels students together with elementary students even though research among TAG students has not been done in the subject area covered in this research (Beisser et al., 2013, p.26). For instance, Nicols and Baum (2000) found a positive relationship between TAG students and their susceptibility to stress. Dealing with stress requires students to engage in playing.
The target group for the research was fifth and sixth grade students in urban, suburban, and rural Midwest. Data was generated through online surveys through which “students were asked to describe the value of play in the cognitive, physical, and social domains” (Beisser et al., 2013, p.25). Open-ended discussions were based on focus groups’ interviews. The discussions were deployed as an essential tool for garnering qualitative data. For the research groups in the two cases considered (online survey and the focus groups), the authors reveal that students marked play into three main domains upon being asked to identify the types of play that they engaged in during TAG programs, in classroom settings, and within their homes. These domains were physical, social, and cognitive (Beisser et al., 2013, p.29) in nature. From the basis of cognitive plays, the researchers found the highest variation across gender. Chess was the most popular among the males (having a 35 percent point differences) while analogies were the most popular among females (having a 23 percent point difference) (Beisser et al., 2013, p.29).In all schools, board games were the most popular. However, students preferred cognitive plays. In particular, they preferred board games that offer an opportunity to use their brains optimally akin to their logical processes of decision-making requirement for such games, and games that give them an opportunity to learn during the process of playing (Beisser et al., 2013, p.29).
The researchers found that physical play preferences were varied across gender. The games requiring rules were more popular among females relative to males. There was a 21-point difference between females and males. The nature of play environment was also important. Students drawn from rural areas enjoyed outside plays (80 percent) in comparison with suburban and urban students (53 percent) (Beisser et al., 2013, p.29). From the paradigms of social plays, plays involving a direct face-to-face interaction with friends attracted the highest score. However, variations existed in the selection of the size of playgroup. Eighty-five percent of all respondents preferred plays involving few friends compared to 50 percent, which preferred social plays involving large groups of friends (Beisser et al., 2013, p.30). Across different schools, “being with a big group of friends was chosen by 42 percent of rural, 54 percent of suburban, and 63 percent of urban respondents” (Beisser et al., 2013, p.30). This aspect suggests that the size of playgroups is instrumental I terms of enhancing the contribution of play in the social development of children in the fifth and sixth grades depending on the schools’ social settings.
Critical Analysis
The research conducted by Beisser et al. (2013) deployed mixed research methods. It employed online surveys and focus group interviews. Since the research design was qualitative in nature, the deployment of focus group interviews was a good research strategy. It is possible to learn about the experiences and thoughts of students about the subject of research. Such data is particularly important in making inferences on emotional impacts on a given research variable. However, some of the variables deployed in the research make the research findings and inferences unreliable. Reliability (Jones, 2002; Corbin & Strauss, 2005), rigor (Finlay, 2006), and validity (Fossey et al., 2002; Cohen & Crabtree, 2008) are important aspects of quality qualitative research. The researchers’ findings indicate that social play preferences varied depending on the size of the playgroups. Few friends were the most preferred across all schools compared to big groups of friends. Many and few friends require quantification. Different students have different perceptions of what constitutes a group of many friends and few friends.
The sample selection presents an immense challenge to the work of Beisser et al. (2013) in the utilisation of the research findings in drawing inferences, which can be used in the generalisation of results concerning the role of play in cognitive, social, and physical development and learning. The researchers appreciate this weakness when they claim that survey “completion involved adult filters regarding survey distribution, including state gifted consultants, TAG instructors, and parents, before its link reached the child” (Beisser et al., 2013, p.33). Hence, the sample used is not reliable in terms of its ability to represent the TAG students’ population. Some parents may have ignored or chosen not to share links sent to them. Researchers are also not sure on the number of teachers and parents who received the link (Beisser et al., 2013, p.33). However, the research findings are consistent with earlier findings on the roles of play among young children. For instance, Ginsburg (2007) argues, “Play is essential to the development because it contributes to the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical wellbeing of children and youth” (p.182).The evidence drawn from the works of Pellegrini and Smith (1998), Elkind (2007), and Miller and Almon (2009) also supports this assertion. Combined with these findings, the work of Beisser et al. (2013) has the implication of recommending parents and teachers to consider emphasising play at home and school for TAG students.
Conclusion
Although the work of Beisser et al. (2013) has been criticised in the paper as having some methodological issues, it forms the importance of play among schoolchildren. Play is crucial in facilitating emotional, physical, emotional, and social development of children. It also helps in reducing learning stress. These positive effects of play underline the significance of calling upon parents and teachers to emphasise play at schools and homes, especially among TAG students.
References
Beisser, S., Gillespie, C., & Thacker, V. (2013). An Investigation of Play: From the Voices of Fifth-and Sixth-Grade Talented and Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 25-38.
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2008). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research: Controversies and Recommendations. Criteria for Qualitative Research, 6(4), 331-339.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2005). Grounded theory research: procedures, cannons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 1-20.
Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: Learning what comes naturally. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press.
Finlay. L. (2006). Rigor, Ethical Integrity or Artistry” Reflexively Reviewing Criteria For Evaluating Qualitative Research. British Journal of occupational Therapy, 69(7), 319-326
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(1), 717–732.
Ginsburg, K. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Paediatrics, 119(32), 182-191.
Jones, S. (2002). Writing the world: methodological strategies and issues in qualitative research. Journal of College Student’s Development, 43(4), 461-473.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
Nicols, H., & Baum, S. (2000). Actively engaged but secretly stressed: Keys to helping youngsters with stress reduction. Parenting for High Potential, 3(2), 8-12.
Pellegrini, D., & Smith, P. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69(13), 577-598.