Collaborative play in early childhood education childrens issues laws and programs

CHILDREN'S ISSUES, LAWS AND PROGRAMS

COLLABORATIVE PLAY IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.


CHILDREN'S ISSUES,
LAWS AND PROGRAMS
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website
under the Series tab.
Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website
under the E-book tab.

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND
GLOBALIZING WORLD
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website
under the Series tab.
Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website
under the E-book tab.


CHILDREN'S ISSUES, LAWS AND PROGRAMS

COLLABORATIVE PLAY IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

W.B. MAWSON

———————————————

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
New York


Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the
written permission of the Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site:
NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes
no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for
any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential
damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book.
The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary
damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon,
this material.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or
recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed
by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from

any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this
publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with
regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding
that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional
services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a
competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF
PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Available upon Request
ISBN: 978-1-61209-104-4 (eBook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York


CONTENTS
Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

Introduction

1

Section One – Background

5

Chapter 1

Current Understandings of Collaborative Play

Chapter 2

Early Childhood Education in New Zealand

17

Chapter 3

The Research Project

21

Section Two – Research Findings – Themes

7

27

Chapter 4

Family Roles

29

Chapter 5

Character Roles

41

Chapter 6

Functional Roles

49

Chapter 7

Pretend I’m Dead

59

Chapter 8

Funds of Knowledge – Science, Mathematics
and Technological Concepts in Play

67

Chapter 9

Leadership

85

Chapter 10

Can I Play? Intervention Strategies

Section Three – Implications
Chapter 11

Environments

101
111
113


Contents

vi
Chapter 12

Gender

121

Chapter 13

Encouraging Collaborative Play

129

References

139

Index

149


PREFACE
Young children’s collaborative play is a little-researched and poorly
understood area. This solidly research-based book throws new light on a
fascinating world of children’s play and relationships in early childhood
settings. A key feature of the book is the weight given to children’s voices
through the use of in-depth accounts of actual collaborative play episodes in
two distinctive early childhood settings. The detailed, full field notes provide a
substantial body of evidence of a little known area of children’s lives in early
childhood settings, allowing the reader to become a participant in the
children’s play.
The introductory section of three chapters establishes the context. The
following section provides a comprehensive coverage of all major aspects of
children’s collaborative play. Dominant themes within children’s play are
described and illustrated. The chapters on leadership styles, intervention
strategies and children’s scientific, mathematical and technological funds of
knowledge are of particular significance and provide groundbreaking
knowledge for early childhood educators.
The final section of the book focuses on the implications of these new
understandings on the nature of collaborative for early childhood educators.

New understandings on the gendered nature of children’s collaborative play
and the significance of mixed gender play provide important insights for early
childhood educator’s pedagogy and practice. Early childhood educators will
also find the chapter on strategies to encourage and enhance children’s
collaborative play of real value, especially the strategies to involve boys in
more complex collaborative play episodes.
The author, Dr Brent Mawson is a Principal Lecturer in Early Childhood
Education in the Faculty of Education in the University of Auckland. He is


viii

W.B. Mawson

highly regarded for the quality of his research and publications into children’s
collaborative play and leadership styles.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge friendship offered to me by the sixty-nine
children whose lives are laid out in this book. My life was enriched by sharing
in their enthusiasm and joy of life. I would also like to acknowledge the
parents and six teachers who allowed my into their early childhood settings
and trusted me with their precious children. I also thank the parents for their
permission to use images of their children to illustrate the book.
Material in chapter 8 ‘Pretend I’m dead eh” has previously appeared in
Mawson, B. (2008). "Pretend I'm dead, eh": The place of death in sociodramatic play. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 11, 5164.
Funding for the research was granted by the Faculty of Education, the
University of Auckland

INTRODUCTION
Collaborative play in early childhood education is an under-researched
and under-theorised area (Shim, Herwig, & Shelley, 2001). The overwhelming
proportion of research in the nature of collaboration of young children less
than five years of age has focused on family situations and the relationship
between siblings and between a child and their parent. This book is focused
around the findings of a two-year research project investigating the nature of
young children’s independent collaborative play in two New Zealand early
childhood education settings. This study provides an almost unique picture of
young children’s play away from adult surveillance and intervention. Although
the evidence comes from particular settings in New Zealand the nature of the
play and the particular themes that absorb the children will resonate with most
early childhood educators.
The book is structured around three thematically linked sections. The first
section provides the necessary background and contextual information for an
understanding of the research findings that are the core of the work. Chapter
One lays out the wider context of collaborative play. It discusses the literature
related to children’s collaborative play and identifies the gap in our knowledge
of children’s independent collaborative play in early childhood settings. The
most significant frameworks for describing and analysing children’s
collaborative play are analysed and the strengths and weakness of each
discussed.
Chapter Two describes the nature of the early childhood sector within
New Zealand. The different services available to parents and children are
outlined and the role of government policy is discussed. The nature and
international significance of the national early childhood curriculum Te
Whaariki is also explained.

2

W.B. Mawson

Chapter Three describes the settings of the research, the research design
and data collection methods. The ethical and practical issues involved in
researching in early childhood settings are discussed. Similarities and
differences between the two early childhood centres involved in the research
and between them and the New Zealand early childhood sector in general are
addressed and some suggestion of the level of generalisability of the material
is proposed.
Section Two is concerned with describing the main findings of the
research. The nature of socio-dramatic and pretend or fantasy play is discussed
and a summary of the dominant themes of children’s independent
collaborative play that were observed is given. The section then looks more
closely at specific themes, using Ashiabi’s (2007) three categories of socio
dramatic play themes; family roles (Chapter Four), character roles (Chapter
Five), and functional roles (Chapter Six) as a framework. Chapter Seven
describes and discusses the place of ‘pretend I’m dead” as a dominant leitmotif
in the play within one of the early childhood settings.
Chapter Eight uses the concept of funds of knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll, &
Amanti, 2005) to examine the references to science, mathematics and
technology concepts and knowledge within the play scenarios. It is proposed
that a knowledge of the situated place of these ideas within children’s play
offers insights into the nature and scope of teacher content knowledge that
may be needed to effectively interact with children and scaffold their learning.
Chapter Nine addresses the question of the nature of leadership within
collaborative play. Specific types of male and female leadership styles and
behaviours, dictators and directors are identified. The nature of leadership in

mixed gender play is also addressed and the significant impact on male
children is discussed. Chapter Ten discusses the intervention strategies used by
the children, both successful and unsuccessfully, as they attempted to gain
entry to existing play episodes
Section Three focuses on the wider implications of the study. Chapter
Eleven is concerned with the impact of the physical environment and the
resources available to them on children’s collaborative play. Chapter Twelve
addresses the question of how gender impacts on and influences children’s
collaborative play.
Finally in Chapter Thirteen strategies are suggested as to how early
childhood educators can encourage and facilitate children’s independent
collaborative play. After discussing the resourcing of early childhood settings
a number of suggestions are provided for effective teaching strategies that can


Introduction

3

be used to enhance this type of play, and the interactions between adults and
children in early childhood settings.
I am conscious that the child’s voice is often lost among the authoritative
voice of the adult commentator so I have tried to give as much space as
possible to verbatim reports of children’s play interactions. They are quite
capable of speaking for themselves and the detail of the play also allows
readers to make their own interpretations of the evidence.
Within this book you will come to intimately know some amazing young
children who welcomed me into their place and gave me unconditional
friendship. I am privileged to be able to share their life and experience with the
wider world.

SECTION ONE – BACKGROUND



Chapter 1

CURRENT UNDERSTANDINGS
OF COLLABORATIVE PLAY
There is still no agreed definition of play. Play research has been
“bedeviled by the search for a definition of what play is and what is does for
the child’ (Bennett, Wood, & Rogers, 1997, p. 4). A wide range of
explanations as to the nature and purpose of children’s play have been
advanced. Moyles has identified 17 different play theories that have been
promulgated since the 1870’s, seven of which have produced in the last 50
years (Moyles, 2005, p, 5). It is hardly surprising therefore that with a new
theory of play appearing on average at less than ten-yearly intervals that this
lack of consensus exists. Currently a Vygotskian-based socio-cultural view of
play and children’s learning underpins curriculum and teaching approaches
within the New Zealand early education sector (Hedges, 2003).
Although a definition of play may still a matter of debate this has not
prevented the development of models of the development in sophistication and
complexity in children’s play. The first significant hierarchy of play was
developed by Parten in 1932. Parten identified six chronological stages of
play,
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

Unoccupied behaviour 0 - 24 months
Solitary play – 24-30 months
Onlooker behaviour
Parallel play – 30-42 months
Associative play – 42-54 months
Cooperative play (Parten, 1932, cited in Rubin et al, 1976)


W.B. Mawson

8

Critique of Parten’s hierarchy began to emerge in the 1970’s with a
particular focus on his low rating of solitary play. Roper and Hinde (1978) and
Rubin (1982) found that children involved in solitary play were engaged in
more cognitive activity than children involved in parallel play, which was seen
as been as low grade play.
Smilansky developed the second major hierarchy of play. She used
Piaget’s three categories of sensorimotor play; pre-operational play and
concrete operational play (Mooney, 2000) to develop her own categories of
functional-sensorimotor play, constructive play, dramatic play, and games
with rules (Smilansky, 1968, cited in Rubin, 1982). Smilansky regarded these
types of play developing in a relatively fixed sequence.
All of the play hierarchies give a very high status to collaborative play,
which is seen to produce the richest learner for young children. There is
evidence that children who are involved in high levels of peer interactive play

demonstrate more competent emotional-regulation, initiation, selfdetermination, and receptive vocabulary skills, and are less likely to be
aggressive, shy or withdrawn. They have greater cognitive, social, and
movement coordination outcomes (Black & Hazen, 1990).
Recognition of the importance of collaborative play has given rise to a
number of attempts to categorize and rank varieties of peer play. Howes
(1980) rating scale for interactive peer play identifies them as,
1.
2.
3.
4.

Parallel play
Parallel play with mutual regard
Simple social play
Reciprocal and complementary action and mutual gaze or awareness
of the other
5. Reciprocal social play – contingent social behaviours and
complementary actions.
Smilansky (1990) made a distinction between dramatic play when
children take on a role in which they pretend to be someone else and sociodramatic play, which involves the cooperation of two or more children
interacting as they play out their roles. Smilansky identified six elements that
reflect the dramatic and socio-dramatic aspects of the play activity,
1. Role play by imitation
2. Make believe with objects’
3. Make believe with actions and situations


Current Understandings of Collaborative Play

9

4. Persistence in the role play
5. Interaction
6. Verbal communication,
Smilansky felt that elements five and six must be present in order for the
play activity to be considered socio-dramatic.
Roskos (1990) outlined a taxonomy of pretend play, which had a
hierarchy of increasingly complex play that moved from individual play with
objects through to ‘episodes’, which she conceptualised as having three main
elements. The first she identified as a readying stage during which the group
was formed and the intention to play and the initial interest was established.
This was followed with a leader directing the play and the players with the
play resembling a kind of story complete with setting, characters and plot. The
third element was object of repetition in the play.
Verba’s (1994) description of collaborative play was based on two
principles, collaboration and coherence. She identified three essential aspects
of collaborative play. These were cognitive aspects (developing the goal,
linking ideas), transactional aspects (developing mutual understanding,
agreeing on ideas and intentions, resolving conflict) and management aspects
(evaluation, intervention, decision making). Verba derived three functional
categories from her analysis of the actions and behaviours of the children she
studied. These were the elaboration of activity and coordination of purpose,
sharing focused on interest in the partner and development of intercomprehension, and management using self-monitoring of the activity and
guiding strategies
Shim, Herwig and Shelley (2001) identified three categories of
collaborative play. These were Interactive-functional play (when two or more
players engage in complementary repetitive or active physical movements),
Interactive-constructive play (when two or more players create or construct
something together), and Interactive-dramatic play (when two or more players
engage in complementary fantasy actions or vocalizations and role playing).

They described eighteen behaviours that could be used by observers to identify
children’s cooperative play.
Broadhead (2004) formulated a social play continuum for the analysis of
the nature of children’s play interactions. The four broad categories within her
framework are the associative domain, the social domain, the highly social
domain, and the cooperative domain. The cooperative domain is where fully
collaborative play is situated. Broadhead has suggested a number of criteria
that need to be met for play to be within the cooperative domain. These are


10

W.B. Mawson

offering/accepting objects that sustains/extends the play theme, sustained
dialogue is activity related and clear theme(s) emerge, explanations/
descriptions are utilised, new ideas/resources extend and sustain play, children
display a shared understanding of goals, they offer and accept verbal and
physical help which is often combined, problems are jointly identified and
solved, and sustained dramatic scenarios are enacted and linked to play
theme(s).
Ashiabi (2007) identified three categories of socio dramatic play themes.
These are family roles, character roles, and functional roles. Family roles are
fairly self-explanatory, character roles are categorised as being usually
stereotyped (princess) or fictional (related often to popular culture characters)
and functional roles are defined in terms of a specific action role (fireman,
policeman).
Ashiabi (2007) identifies a range of positive benefits that children gain
from involvement in collaborative play. These include enhancement of a
child’s ability to reflect before acting and to empathise with other children’s

point of view, their negotiation skills, and to experience alternative problem
solving and conflict resolution strategies. Perspective taking and role taking
skills are developed and the ability to co-operate is fostered. Finally, Ashabi
believes that the child’s ability to develop and sustain relationships and their
ability to recognize the mental state of other people is developed. “Through
play a child first comes to understand self-awareness, the distinction between
pretend and reality, and the intentions of others” (p.203).
The most recent hierarchy has been developed by Barton & Wolery
(2008). Their pretend play taxonomy has the following elements
1. Functional play with pretence
2. Substitution
a. Object substitution
b. Imagining absent attributes
c. Assigning absent attributes
3. Sequences
a. Functional play with pretence
b. Substitution
4. Verbalization
a. Confirmatory vocalizations
b. Scripts


Current Understandings of Collaborative Play

11

Although all these hierarchies of collaborative play have some distinctive
elements, a common thread runs through all of them. There is a strong
emphasis on intersubjectivity, negotiation and verbal communication and I
used these three characteristics in my research to identify an episode of

collaborative play
The importance of collaborative play is a strong belief among early
childhood educators and recent curriculum developers. Te Whaariki (Ministry
of Education, 1996), the New Zealand early childhood curriculum is a socioculturally oriented learning document that emphasizes the place of reciprocal
relationships in children’s learning. Children’s collaborative play is a key
element in this process (Tudge, 1992). However, little is understood about the
factors that encourage young children to play together in a collaborative
manner (Carr & May, 2000).
There is a reasonably large body of literature related to the benefits of
collaborative play within general early childhood textbooks, but little specific
research-based literature. Most of the research literature is concerned with peer
collaboration in specific learning tasks with primary and secondary school
students (e.g. Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Murphy & Faulkner, 2006).
A significant exception to this is the work of William Corsaro who for
thirty years has been researching and writing about the nature of children’s
friendships and peer cultures in a range of settings in Italy and the United
States (e.g. Corsaro 1979; 1992; 2005). Corsaro (1985, cited in Strandell,
1997) defined interactive episodes as, “those sequences of actions which begin
with the acknowledged presence of two or more interactants in an ecological
area and the overt attempt(s) to arrive at a shared meaning of on-going or
emerging activities. Episodes end with physical movement of interactants from
the area which results in the termination of the originally initiated activity.”
Corsaro believes the major function of a children’s peer group is to establish
itself in opposition to adult culture (Evalssonn & Corsaro, 1998). A simpler
definition of collaborative play was put forward by Garvey (1977, cited in
Barnes, & Vangelisti, 1995), “To play successfully requires that the partners
communicate to each other [both] that they are playing and what is being
played.”
Fantasy play is a complex, representational activity which requires
children to negotiate and adopt make believe roles and to jointly enact those

roles, while managing two potentially conflicting agendas, their own and the
groups (Barnes & Vangelisti, 1995). The spontaneous nature of much fantasy
play means that children constantly have to react to and accommodate other
children’s desires. The benefit of pretend or fantasy play is well established.


12

W.B. Mawson

Vygotsky (1978) saw socio-dramatic play as being an essential element in
children’s learning. Within this type of play children transform objects and
actions symbolically, develop their skill in interactive dialogue and
negotiation, and show an adept ability to role play, develop complex scripts,
problem solve and goal seeking. Research has shown some clear links between
social and linguistic competence and high-level pretence (Bergan, 2004).
Pretend play encourages children to create elaborative narratives and may
facilitate children’s narrative recall and expression.
An important aspect of young children’s play is a growth of preference for
same-sex social partners. This begins first with girls in their third year of life
and later with boys after their third birthday. By age five this preference for
same-sex social partners is more firmly established among the boys (Maccoby,
1998). This clear gender segregation has led some writers to view young
children as inhabiting two separate cultures. There is a wealth of literature
relating to gender differences in children’s play. One area of interest is
communication strategies. Sluss and Stremmel (2004) found that girls’ block
play is affected by capability of play partner, but not that of boys. They also
found that, unlike boys, girls’ communication was influenced by the play
partner and that they were more likely to offer assistance than boys. Murphy &
Faulkner (2006) also identified gender differences with regard to

communication in play. They found that girl’s communication contained more
collaborative speech than that of boys, while that of the boys contained more
controlling speech. Girls were found to demonstrate more elaboration of peer’s
proposals and more responsitivity and mutual coordination than boys. Neppi
and Murray (1997) believe that preschool boys and girls differ in how they
attempt to influence their partner’s behaviour. Girls were found to use indirect
demands, polite requests, and persuasion while the boys relied on direct
demands, commands, threats, physical force, and a greater use of statements
that expressed their personal desires and asserted leadership. Similarly West
(1996) found that all male groups used the loudest language, spoke in the
simplest sentences and were the most physical in their play. The research of
Cook, Fritz, McCornack, and Visperas (1985) indicated that males talked more
to same sex peers than girls. Males also made greater use of statements that
expressed their personal desires and asserted leadership. They found that
males made greater use of lecturing or teaching/directing statements.
Gender differences have also been observed with regard to cooperation
and collaboration in play episodes. Black and Hazen (1990) found that girls
were more likely to join in the activity of playmates and that the play was
more likely to involve cooperative, cohesive turn-taking, On the other hand


Current Understandings of Collaborative Play

13

boys were more likely to pursue their own ideas for play, and it was more
likely to be characterized by abrupt shifts of topic, repeated reorganization of
play episodes and in general a more dispersive social interaction. For boys the
degree of liking or friendship with the chosen partner is less relevant in
decisions to initiate interaction than the play activity itself (Cook et al, 1985).

Other research has indicated that there seems to be some benefit for boys
in superhero, war, and rough and tumble play in early childhood settings.
Parsons and Howe (2006) claim that boys have a higher frequency of
character/fictive and exploration/negotiation role in super hero play, than when
playing with other representational toys. Reed and Brown (2000) found that
boys use rough and tumble to express care for one another and to develop
friendships, and recommended that early childhood educators should
encourage rough and tumble, provide outdoor space for it, and give children
time to play rough and tumble. Marsh (1999, 2000) has suggested that there is
also value in superhero play for girls. Holland (2003) suggests that the
prescription of aggressive play impacts on the self-esteem of boys, and also
affects the self-confidence of girls to engage in active and boisterous play
scenarios.
Socio-dramatic play is another facet of play in which gender differences
have been observed. Girls engage in fantasy play both more frequently and at
more sophisticated level than do boys (Maguire & Dunn, 1997; Pellegrini &
Smith, 1998). Both sexes enact roles related to their gender. Stereotyped
themes occur in fantasy play with girls focusing on domestic items and
domestic and maternal dramatic themes, dolls, dress up clothes while the boys
tend to be more fantasy inclined and physically vigorous. The boys play often
co-occurs with play fighting and superhero themes, adventure, villainy,
danger, cops and robbers, fire, police and superheroes and is predominantly
focused on action (Neppi & Murray, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Rogers
& Evans 2006). Neppi and Murray (1997) indicate that a gender preference for
sex-typed toys appears at age two and remains stable. Girls preferred soft toys
such as stuffed animals and dolls, bead bracelets, art materials, dressing up and
dancing while the boys preferred manipulation objects, blocks, transportation
toys, guns and to play in the sandpit. When boys play with female-preferred
toys, such as dolls, the play is less sophisticated than it is with male-preferred
toys such as blocks (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998).

Differences in the nature of gendered social interactions have also been
noted. Neppi and Murray (1997) found that in social play, the girls played in
small groups, most often in pairs. Their play was cooperative, usually
organised in non-competitive ways, and constructive in nature. However they


14

W.B. Mawson

found that boys played in larger, more hierarchically organised groups and that
status within the group was manipulated in their interactions with their peers.
Boys also tended to indulge in functional play. Ostrov and Keating (2004)
observed that girls displayed more relational aggression than boys, and that the
children tended to receive more relational aggression from female peers. The
boys however displayed more physical and verbal aggression than girls and
the children received more physical and verbal aggression from male peers.
Girls seek power by commanding the role of mother, teacher etc while boys
seek power by commanding the role of superhero (Jordan & Cowan, 1995).
Cullen (1993) has also observed differences in girls and boys play in
outdoor settings. She believes that parents and teachers interactions with
children are gender stereotyped and that this affects children’s outdoor play.
Girls prefer to be where teachers are and Cullen notes that teachers prefer
indoor activities, and even when girls play in the sandpit it is quieter, hometype play as compared to the boys more physical forms of play such as digging
in sandpit. Cullen suggests that boys are more active and spend more time
outdoors where they perform more fantasy play, making use of large open
spaces and apparatus.
However recent research in the field of peer relationships does not support
two culture claim that girls friendships are more intimate and exclusive than
boys friendships (Goodwin, 2006), nor does it support two culture claim that

boys networks are larger and more hierarchically organized and that boys
networks exert more influence over members to engage in deviance and rule
breaking (Underwood, 2004). However, Underwood does accept that the peer
relationship data partially supports the claim that the different cultures have
different values and may sanction different behaviours and that children
strongly prefer to play with peers of the same gender. Two cultures and peer
relations researchers agree that children’s peer relations have important
consequences for future adjustment. Thorne (1993) provided an earlier critique
and rejection of the two culture theory.
In summary therefore, although the nature of play is still a disputed area
there is a consensus that collaborative play is the most complex and
developmentally advantageous form of play for young children. Although a
number of different taxonomies of collaborative play have been developed
there is a core element revolving around intersubjectivity, negotiation and
verbal communication that enables an identification of collaborative play to be
made. These three elements were the basis on which my investigation of
collaborative play was founded.