Rebecca Caster

Empire State College

Human Learning and Development

August 28, 2015

Final Paper

Final Paper

There is no doubt that Jean Piaget has set some of the most important ground work when

it comes to understanding the way children think and learn. His methods and research have been

used as building blocks by other researchers, teachers and parents alike. However, it can often be

difficult to look at research that was conducted, and examples that are given in strict form with

rules, and see how Piaget’s work still makes an impact on the lives of people today.

Although there is no doubt that when it comes to studying how to be a good teacher or

learning how to get an idea across to children or what level lesson plan to make, Piaget and his

research and indeed some of the most important and most referred to works that are available.

Yet, when it comes to really seeing his work in action in everyday life, things can get a little

more blurry. His work can be considered ‘out dated’ by some terms, and his original concepts

have been repeated and tested and reported on by many others since.

As a way to really see how Piaget’s work is applied in a more ‘real life’ setting, I looked

at his work in regards to the book “You Can’t Say You Can’t Play” by Vivian Paley. Paley is an

elementary school teacher who recounts her predicament and feelings surrounding the words

“You can’t play”. By comparing Parley’s experiences with her idea of wanting to make a rule

against those words, we see how Piaget’s development theories are still in effect, not only in the

classroom learning environment, but in social environments of the children’s everyday lives as

well.

Paley begins by exploring the idea of making her rule against those words. She recounts

her own experiences as a young child and how she was not included in the “in” group, and how

she was even withheld from kindergarten for not fitting in, and sees many of the same

characteristics that she related to in the young children that were the ‘outcasts’ in her own

classroom. She recounts how these same children that most often do not get to play with the

others, go on to experience this same refusal over the many years of schooling.

Before Paley announces that she is even considering this new rule, she takes some

time to really think it over on her own. At the same time she begins to question if this rule would

be more helpful or harmful, she introduces Magpie and his friends to her students. The stories of

Magpie, well at first were a little confusing, make for an excellent conduit for the children to

begin discussing their own feelings about exclusion, both those who have been excluded, and

those doing the excluding.

Paley reaches out to the older children in the school as well about the new rule. In

an effort to fully understand the implications of such a rule, Paley takes the time to sit with each

of the elementary school grades and get their views on the subject. Well there is no one

conclusion as to if the rule was a good or bad idea, one thing seem to be agreed upon, and that

was that this new rule, if it was to ever work, needed to be implemented at a very young age.

The children in the higher grades explain how not only they are more accustomed to this

idea of exclusion, but that they would not always care about such a rule if it was implemented.

They explain to both Paley and the reader that there is an order, even to the play of children, and

this order involves someone being a “boss”. The older children also explain that they know in

life not all things are far, and tell Paley that it might just be better if everyone experienced it

now, “so you may as well learn it now.” (Paley 1992 )

As the Magpie stories continue to resemble the struggles of both Paley and her children,

the new rule is finally implemented in to the kindergarten class. Although it is not without some

resistance, overall the rule seems to be working well. Paley explains how the rule seems to have

taken a burden off of the children, as if “relived from the responsibility of looking for loopholes”

(Paley 1992 p.127). New discoveries arise as to the nature of exclusion and the unspoken rules

behind the children’s play. Paley begins to better understand the situations that cause the children

to act the way they do, such as “the habit of exclusion [which] grows strong, the identity of those

being excluded is not a major obstacle” (1992 p.117). It becomes clear that it is not the exclusion

itself that is what keeps kids from playing together, but the power in which the exclusion holds.

Once exclusion holds no power anymore, a new world of play begins to immerge, and the

chances of a happier school, even happier world, appear in the distances for both the younger and

the older kids.

The children in Mrs. Paley’s Kindergarten class balance between two stages of Jean

Piaget’s cognitive development. With the typical ages for kindergarten being between five and

seven, it is no question that the children go between Piaget’s stages of preoperational (ages 2-6)

and concrete operational (7-11) (Piaget 2003). The stage of preoperational is most clear when the

children tell their own stories and talk about the Magpie stories. Paley even says in her book

“how could I have known the stories the child dictate for us to act out are even more private and

intimate in design and function then play itself” (1992 p.122). The children are learning to “use

and to represent objects by images, words and drawings…[and are] able to form stable concepts

as well as mental reasoning and magical beliefs” (Rice 2011). The stories that the children tell,

and are relating to in Magpie’s stories, are representations of what they are seeing and feeling in

their day to day lives.

Yet when Paley gathers the group to discuss the new rule, the group is able to use

“the appropriate use of logic ” (Rice 2011) when discussing fair, right and wrong, and the

consequences; both good and bad, of what might happen should the new rule be implemented.

This ability to use logic when discussing the new rule is a clear sign that the students are

progressing into the concrete operational stage of Piaget’s development.

The task that Paley sets out to do by implementing her rule “You can’t say you can’t

play” is no small one. Piaget discusses in his article “The Spirit of Solidarity in Children and

International Cooperation” (1931) how there are two types of solidarity that children show in

their play. In external solidarity “There is solidarity among individuals because they all obey an

absolute and unalterable rule” (Piaget 2011). This is the first type of solidarity that the children

experience, arguably from birth. The children are shown the concept of there being a ‘boss’ in

everyday life, from their parents to their teachers to their bus drivers and so forth, and this

concept leaks into their play as well. It is this outside force, this idea of a ‘boss’ that holds the

children united in their play and to which dictates the rules of the game. As the children grow,

this boss concept becomes concreate, a known fact, and the idea of a game without there being a

boss seems simply obscured to them. During a discussion with the second grade children, the

fact that there is, and in the children’s minds, needs to be a boss, becomes abundantly clear, and

Paley is quoted as saying “I find myself disturbed by this unchallenged acceptance of a

boss”( 1992 p 46).

In her book, Paley is attempting to rewrite the type of solidarity seen in her classroom play.

Unlike external solidarity, with internal solidarity “the individuals are not subject to any

overriding and unalterable rule, but lay down their own laws, which are therefore internal from

the point of view of the group, and are always liable to revision and amendment.” (Piaget 2011).

Well it can be argued that Paley, as the teacher, is still enforcing this new rule as an outside

force, this new rule is always up for revision among the children and Paley as a group. The class

has spent many hours talking about this new rule, and together the class is embarking on the

quest to implement the rule together. Although all were not on board at first, it is the idea that

this rule is coming from and being dictated by them children themselves that qualifies the

solidarity change. This new rule is not a rule that is imposed by punishment, but rather a rule as

defined by Piaget himself as “a social phenomenon involving a relation between two or more

individuals” (Piaget 2011).This social rule is enforced by the group itself and Paley is only there

acting as the mediator when problems arise. Like all good mediators, the problem is solved

through “thinking about it and talking about it some more” (Paley 1992 p113), and it is this

group activity in itself that allows the change between an outside force and an internal force

where the rule arises from.

Piaget, when speaking about children and their language in his book The Language and

Thought of the Child is quoted saying “the child is less individualized than the adult in that he

gives way to all suggestions and his personality is not strong enough to resist the currents of

imitation which flow through a group” (1924). Paley, although daunting as her task may be, has

chosen the perfect timeframe age wise to implement this new rule. Should the students have been

much older, their individualized selves may have been much stronger, and the resistance to the

rule would parallel. One student was quoted saying “in second grade, you know how to handle

yourself” (Paley 1992 p.47). This shows that even a couple years difference between the children

at that age can change the dynamics of the situation drastically.

Paley also has the added benefit of “the small child receive[ing] from the adult the double

impression of being dominated by a mind far superior to his own and at the same time of being

completely understood by this mind with which he shares everything” (Piaget 1924). When

Paley suggests to the children the first time about her new rule, the children are (subconsciously

for the most part) under the impression that, because she is older and their teacher, she is also

wiser and far superior then them, and on some level imitate and idolize her. This means that

whatever Paley presents to the group, on some level, the children want to understand and agree

with her. Adding to this the added bonus that Paley also takes the time to talk with them and hear

their options, the children undoubtedly know that their teacher understands them and knows

everything there is to know about the children’s desires. With such trust the students have in

their teacher, it is the perfect opportunity to implement such a game changing rule.

Piaget’s is not the only development being seen in the book. Kohlberg’s stages of moral

development mimic the actions of the children as well. The children in all grades are struggling

with what they know is right and what they know is ‘the way of it’. The children in elementary

school are struggling between Kohlberg’s level one and two of moral development. With the

Kindergarten kids still being concerned with the rules and punishment, it is clear that by grade

five, these punishments do not hold as much weight , saying “if someone in my class broke your

rule new rule and was sent into the hall, they’d just goof off- they wouldn’t care” (Paley 1992

p.113). Paley explains to this student that the new rule is not “a matter of punishing someone, it’s

more a case of protecting someone” (Paley 1992 p.113). At this stage the fifth graders are able to

understand that this rule is more about being nice and doing what is right, rather than getting

punished for doing what is wrong. The fifth graders are on their way to understanding

interpersonal concordance in stage three of Kohlberg’s moral development, where “There is

much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or "natural" behavior [and]

Behavior is frequently judged by intention”( Kohlberg 1971), however this is not the case with

Paley’s Kindergarten class.

The ages of the students in the Kindergarten class have them unaware that it is this bigger

struggle they are contemplating, and instead they believe they are just trying to figure out if this

new rule will work and be the best for each of them and for the group as a whole. The students

are in the stage of Preconventional Morality , more specifically Stage Two: Individualism &

Exchange where “ The child considers his or her individual needs or best interests to determine

what type of action to take”( Gould 2009). The children are considering not only what would be

best for themselves, but are able to show empathy for the other children who do not get to play in

the group. However, most of younger children are not yet at the stage where “emphasis is placed

on what a person needs to do in order to live up to a group's standards”( Gould 2009), and are

still concerned about the punishment that will follow should a rule be disobeyed.

The fourth graders in the book are just starting to understand that a person is supposed to

act a specific way to fit into society, saying things like “they are supposed to act a certain way”

(Paley 1992 p 62). However, the kindergarten class is just coming out of the stage of Obedience

& Punishment Orientation: where “ The child is not concerned with whether or not the decision

is morally right or wrong, but rather with whether or not it will be punished”( Gould 2009). The

stage in the book where Paley’s class is at falls somewhere between these two stages, with

sometimes the concerns being more about punishment, and sometimes the concerns being more

about morality. However, despite this line that the children walk between the two stages, both

concepts are known to them, and both are weighed when discussing the new rule as a group.

Well the children are beginning to understand moral right from wrong in kindergarten;

they are still accepting rules as the “law” as some of the older children put it in the book. The

younger children still know that the teacher is in charge and makes the rules, and what she says

goes, well the older children realize that, although the teacher may mean the best with this new

rule, it is not the end all be all, and they can still choose how they want to act, saying “it’s too

late to give us a new rule” (Paley 1992 p. 63). Although the older children did not know it at the

time, it is this stage in moral development that they were referring to when they said the new rule

needed to be implemented at a young age, “Because they’ll believe you that it’s a rule. You

know, a law” (Paley 1992 pg. 63).

With the children in Paley’s classroom still young enough to accept such a different and

new rule, it has the ability to set the framework for their social interactions for the years to come.

“Vygotsky theorized that young children use private speech in play to regulate their behavior,

eventually transforming this private speech into self-regulation through internal thought”

(Bergen 2002). Virtually every activity described in the book has the children in Paley’s

classroom speaking or dictating about their actions and emotions. It is this dictation that allows

such intervention that is needed to implement this new rule. This gives Paley and other teachers

the chance to change the course of thoughts within the children in a gentle and reassuring

manner.

This course of thought that is being redirected in an effort to include everyone in play is

the same thought that will be used a form of self-regulation by the children in the future. With

the changes to these verbal dictations by Paley, the children are being taught what and how to

think in similar situations in the future. Such situations will not always have the luxury of such

verbal communication, and instead the student’s internal voice will take the place of Paley’s as

their own means of self-regulation. Knowing this, it is easy to see how the interactions between

Paley and her students now will set the course of social interactions for many years to come, if

not the rest of their lives.

It is essential that this new rule is implemented and enforced in play, simply making

everyone work together to complete a preset task and still having them divide themselves in play

would not have such an outstanding and long lasting effect. “Social pretense, which requires

children to determine task goals and carry them out, provides more opportunities for self-

regulating private speech than do less complex play settings and settings with tasks having

predetermined goals and greater teacher direction” (Bergen 2002). It is this communal play, and

this type of play alone, that can produce the life altering, social and self-regulations as desired

and dreamed about by Paley.

Play, in all forms, is such a vital part of childhood. Play is used not only as a means for a

child to enjoy and distress, but holds an importance much greater. Play is a way for the child to

express themselves, their joys, their fears, their desires. It is a way to interact and bond with

those around them, both adult and peer. It gives the adult a glimpse into the world of the child, in

an effort to better understand the child as their own person. In social contexts, it teaches what is

accepted and what is not. It teaches society’s rules from a very early age, and lets the child

experience and play around with a range of emotions in a safe and enjoyable manner.

Psychological research is just on the verge of beginning to discover all the possibilities

and effects that play has on children. “Preschoolers' pretend play settings with artifacts

emphasizing number symbols and found that the children in the math-enriched setting engaged

in more talk and activity related to mathematical concepts” (Bergen 2002), and “Numerous

studies of literacy skill development through play, which embed literacy materials within play

settings in preschool, kindergarten, and multiage programs, have typically shown increases in

children's use of literacy materials and engagement in literacy acts” (Bergen 2002). The scope of

the ability that play has on learning and development has barley been seen yet.

With as important as play clearly is to a child’s cognitive development, social

development, self-regulation, their psyche, their emotional health and so much more, the idea of

altering the play is a very formidable one. Perhaps Paley did not know the possibilities of the

area she was entering when she embarked on the task of enforcing everyone the chance to play

together, or perhaps she knew exactly what she was doing, after seeing years and years of

students move up through the grade ranks, and watching the type of social developments that

followed.

References:

Bergen, D. (2002). The Role of Pretend Play in Children's Cognitive Development.

Retrieved April 4, 2015.

Gould, M. (2009). Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. Research Starters Sociology

(Online Edition)

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of Moral Development. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from

http://info.psu.edu.sa/psu/maths/Stages of Moral Development According to

Kohlberg.pdf

Paley, V. (1992). You can't say you can't play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. (1924). The Language and Thought of the Child. Taylor & Francis Group.

Piaget, J. 1. (2003). Development and Learning. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching,

40(3), S8-S18

Piaget, J. (2011). The Spirit of Solidarity in Children and International Cooperation

(1931). Schools: Studies In Education, 8(1), 74-89.

Rice, K. (2011). Piaget's 4 Stages. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from

http://www.theneurotypical.com/piagets-four-stages.html

Sandu, A., Caras, A., & Nica, E. (2013). The Levels of Doctor-patient Relationship - Analysis

from the Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. Procedia - Social And Behavioral

Sciences, 92(Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN 2013), Iasi,

Romania, 10-13 April 2013), 846-853. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.764