Participation in play activities in the children’s peer culture

ABSTRACT

This research describes the rules and ways of forming playgroups in the children’s peer culture. The data were obtained through observation by videoing children’s activities in various play situations. The data were analysed through ethnographic thick description by using microanalysis and participation framework. The analysis was focused on who could participate in play and what kind of behaviours inhibit participation. In addition, children’s actions in order to get in play activities were observed as a part of the children’s peer culture. To become included, four various methods were noticed: (1) Prowling the play activities; (2) Nonverbal communication; (3) Abstaining from critiquing; and (4) Showing enthusiasm and worming one’s way to play with a toy. Furthermore, tattlers, emotionally incompetent, or dominating children were not accepted in play activities. This research provides information and increases understanding about children’s behaviours and how to guide their emotional skills development.

KEYWORDS:

• Play
• peer culture
• early childhood education and care (ECE) centre
• exclusion
• participation
• emotional skills
• emotional intelligence

Introduction

The early childhood education and care centres (ECEC) are the arenas of children’s peer culture that appears mainly during play activities through the construction of culture, mutual interaction, and use of emotional skills. Children plan, negotiate, analyse, and make decisions within the framework of the special features of their peer culture and adults’ work culture (Elgas, Klein, Kantor, & Fernie, 1988; see also Laiti, Määttä, & Uusiautti, 2020; Ranta, Uusiautti, & Hyvärinen, 2020). Play and playfulness are developmental achievements. Play enhances awareness of social roles and builds empathetic interpersonal skills via make-believe and perspective taking (Fisher, 1992; Lee et al., 2020; Youell, 2008).

This research focused on the methods children use when forming playgroups within their peer culture in the ECE centres. Play activities and the formation of playgroups as well as the selection of children who get along make a significant part of unspoken rules in the children’s peer culture. In addition, their activities represent their need of experiencing themselves as autonomous and individual persons who are allowed to share meanings with their peers. Playing and forming the play activities supports this special feature of children’s peer culture (Corsaro, 2018).

Earlier research has focused on investigating who become selected as playmates. In the ECE centres, the role of physical and social factors can be influential on children’s choices. For example, children prefer those peers who are interested in similar things (Peplak, Song, Colasante, & Malti, 2017), whereas the opposites do not complement each other in these cases (Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004). Furthermore, research has shown that children who have behavioural problems, such as aggressiveness (Chang, 2004), or who represent lower social status (Dys, Peplak, Colasante, & Malti, 2019; Hjalmarsson, 2018), are more likely to become excluded from play activities.

On the other hand, becoming accepted and included in play activities seems to promote positive social development, friendships, self-esteem, and well-being in general (Fesseha & Pyle, 2016; Fisher, 1992; Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003; Youell, 2008). Becoming left outside from play activities can lead to severe social problems, maladjustment, aggressiveness, or behaviours leading to exclusion, such as dropping out from school criminal activity, substance abuse and depression and anxiety, in youth and adulthood (Mikami, Lerner, & Lun, 2010). The position of being an unwanted playmate adopted in childhood also appears to be a somewhat dominating feature during school years (Cillessen, Bukowski, & Haselager, 2000).

According to our review, it seems that there is less research about how emotional skills are connected with the formation of playgroups within children’s peer culture. In this research, the interest is focused on the special features of the children’s peer culture and how emotional skills are connected with the formation of children’s playgroups. Especial interest is in the ways of how children act in order to become included in play activities, who are accepted and who are being left outside. Why do children choose to act in a way they do? If we are able to better understand children’s peer culture and formation of playgroups, we can support their emotional skills development better. It is important to recognize and acknowledge the activities within the children’s peer culture as special structures that ECEC personnel should support instead of trying to control them.

Children’s peer culture

Definitions

When children are in the same space, they create their own culture with its special features and unspoken rules. Children’s peer culture is formed of certain routines, manners, tacit knowledge, as well as values and meanings. Play is a crucial part of peer cultures’ everyday life. Play produces pleasure, a sense of freedom and co-construction of shared meanings through the use of rules and rhythms. For children learning is a natural side of playing (Samuelsson & Carlsson, 2008; Singer, 2015). Peer culture is a usual part of children’s lives as it is for adults as well.

Moreover, children in ECE centres are already aware of how to act with different people (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007). The peer culture includes information about how to behave properly, how to do things in collaborative consensus, what not to say aloud but to express through looks, tones, and ways of using the space (Köngäs, 2018; Peplak et al., 2017). Children can bring out different sides of them in different groups. A child can behave differently with his or her friends than when in a bigger ECEC group or at home (Malti & Dys, 2018). For adults, it can be difficult to recognize children’s mutual rules and acknowledge their importance (Kyratzis, 2004).

Traditional ECE pedagogy is highly instructional and educator-led. When the focus on the educational benefits of play becomes too strong, the most essential feature of play is lost: children’s pleasure. Children’s peer culture holds the kind of silent knowledge that we need to build a totally different kind of qualitative education. Practitioners need effective and innovative approaches to pedagogy (Acer, Gözen, Fırat, Kefeli, & Aslan, 2016; Singer, 2015; Vogt, Hauser, Stebler, Rechsteiner, & Urech, 2018).

Children’s peer culture in relation to adults’ culture

The children’s culture is different from the adults’ culture (Kyratzis, 2004). Children are not merely unformed adults; they reformulate social categories (e.g. friendship, gender) appropriated from the adult culture in ways that are sensitive to context (Toppe, Hardecker, & Haun, 2020) and reflective of children’s personalities and momentary goals and agendas in the culture of peers, goals often related to entry into, and achieving power within, peer groups (Corsaro, 1985, 1997; Paley, 2009).

In the ECE centres’ daily life, children participate in two microcultures: the one formed by themselves and the professional culture maintained by adults. These cultures live side by side, although the framework is built first and foremost by adults (Corsaro, 2012, 2018; Köngäs, 2018). Children are aware of different ways of acting in order to pursue their objectives in these two cultures (Köngäs, 2018). This has been used as an advantage when concentrating on a play-based learning but also this method has risen up the problematics of two culture such combining play and direct instructions, play is less structured so difficult to plan, and teachers are uncertain how to implement guided play (Bubikova-Moan, Næss Hjetland, & Wollscheid, 2019; Fesseha & Pyle, 2016; Pyle, Poliszczuk, & Danniels, 2018).

Children evaluate, observe, and learn about adulthood within the cultures and about the adults' rules and expectations (Purdon, 2016; Wood, 2014). These two microcultures consist of many opposite expectations. In the children’s peer culture, doing funny things and goofing around are popular behaviours whereas, in the adults’ culture, these behaviours are often considered inappropriate. The culture constructed by adults also includes professional tensions which make it difficult for children to observe and analyse emotional expressions (Christensen & James, 2000; Coffey, 1999; Corsaro & Eden, 1999; Kirk & Jay, 2018; Köngäs, 2018). Children work out this dilemma through playing and discussing with their peers (Broekhuizen, Slot, van Aken, & Dubas, 2017).

Togetherness is typical to the children’s peer culture (Corsaro, 2018). It builds up children’s dignity. Children are good at collectively negotiate, share, and organize their communality leaning on methods and ways of thinking offered by adults (Sette, Spinrad, & Baumgartner, 2017). Children are sensitive to outside pressure and try to behave in a socially acceptable manner (Singer, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2006). Some studies suggest that power dynamics and hierarchies are some of the core concerns in the children’s peer cultures globally and in various age groups (Adler & Adler, 1998). At its best, the children’s peer culture in the ECE centre can create a safe emotional basis that lasts until adulthood (Corsaro & Eden, 1999). Then again, if left without understanding in his or her peer culture, the child may find it difficult to know how to behave in future interaction situations (Corsaro, 2003).

Play in children’s lives

The Definitions of Play

There is not just one theory of play but merely many definition and viewpoints (Fromberg, 2002; Kangas, Määttä, & Uusiautti, 2013; Määttä & Uusiautti, 2011). Classical play theories operate as a basis for the modern play theories and come forth with the duality in the process of play in terms of personal expression versus social adaptation (Mellou, 1994). Piaget (1995) distinguished practice, symbol, rule, and role play, Williams, Reddy, and Costall (2001) focused on the different forms of functional play. Caillois (2001) analysed play activities with the concepts of agon (competitive play), alea (a play based on coincident and good luck), mimicry (role plays and mimicking), and ilnix (physical goals oriented play).

In addition, imaginary play is traditionally perceived valuable and developmentally favourable form of play because it ignites the child’s metacognitive skills through meaningful and purposeful experiences (Göncü, Patt, & Kouba, 2002). These experiences are possible when the child presents various roles or transforms the original purpose or use of an object or thing in an imaginary and innovative manner.

Moreover, playful tumbling has its own meaning, even though it is often misunderstood and labeled aggressive. For example, Scarlett, Naudeau, Salonius-Palsternak, and Ponte (2005) emphasize that this type of playing is far from aggression because playing is reciprocal and interactional, and the roles vary without any purpose to conscientiously dominate someone (see also Lai, Ang, Por, & Liew, 2018; Pellegrini, 2002). Positive body image, tolerance, healthy social development, and other benefits have been noticed in play-oriented tumbling (Hart & Nagel, 2017; Köngäs, 2018; Storli, 2013).

Children’s play engagement highly benefits of ECE teachers continuous proximity when teachers intent is in parallel with children's intent. It’s beneficial when teacher follows children’s play with curiosity; teacher engages himself or herself with children’s collective play, and; teacher can imagine along with the children in play (Fleer, 2015; Köngäs, 2018; Singer, Nederend, Penninx, Tajik, & Boom, 2014). Sometimes, teachers position themselves outside of children's play. Often, teachers’ pedagogy seems to be based on a model of individual care and control, and insensitiveness of group dynamic processes (Fleer, 2015; Singer et al., 2014). Ivrendi (2020) states that the participation of teachers’ involvement in play is influenced by children’s age groups, years of teaching experience, number of children in the classroom and number of learning centres (see also Ranta et al., 2020). Allowing play at teaching situations seems to be effectively useful for the attainment of positive outcomes (Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013).

The meaning of play

Both educators and researchers have been interested in observing the elements of continuity in children’s play activities, how play activities begin, and why play activities are stopped or inhibited, and what kinds of effects it (Davy & Gallagher, 2006; Kangas et al., 2013). Every child plays in his or her own way. Vygotsky (1967) believed that play emerges from children’s needs and wishes that can be realized through play activities. Playing demands activity, creativity, and sensitivity (Määttä & Uusiautti, 2011; Paley, 2005). Piaget (1951/1999) noted that playing supports the child’s ego because it transforms reality into a controllable entity. When playing, the child can solve all conflicts between hopes and reality.

Play plays a big role on adapting to and surviving in a complex social world. In ECE centres play helps to overcome differences in power in the caregiver–child relationship, and play is a resource of shared pleasure and creativity (Singer, 2013). Play is both ageless and always developing as the society changes. New trends guide the plays, new figures and keys of interest emerge but the meaning of playing is the same year after year. Play is a great asset to promote creativity in future generations (Samuelsson & Carlsson, 2008). Play can be seen as widely unused and untapped element in ECE.

Starting a play ignites learning but also allows one to practice his or her social skills. Getting in a play involves positive and negative feelings: one becomes accepted or has to face disappointment – or one has to let someone else disappoint. The skills of starting play activities are not axiomatic to everyone, but becoming a wanted playmate requires also observation, adjustment, and insights (Köngäs, 2018). In all, playing has been proved to support several developmental areas such as learning to read (Zigler, Singer, & Bishop-Josef, 2004), motoric development (Awartani, Whitman, & Gordon, 2008; Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005), cognitive abilities (Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Singer, & Berk, 2011), creativity (Jeffrey & Craft, 2006; Määttä & Uusiautti, 2011), social skills (Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016), and emotional intelligence (Köngäs, 2018).

The outcome of a play is not important but the activity and agency of a child as well as the emotional skills and interaction that lays the foundation of emerging friendships through playing (Coelho, Torres, Fernandes, & Santos, 2017). Children need emotional skills and abilities to verbalize their experiences, emotions, and observations. Through play activities, they learn to express their intentions to others, interpret others’ behaviour, and plan their own actions and be aware of their consequences, and form friendships with each other (Wang, Palonen, Hurme, & Kinos, 2019).

Method

The purpose of this research was to investigate the unspoken rules of playing among children in an ECEC setting. The focus was on the children’s peer culture. The following research questions were set for this research: (1) How does one become accepted in play activities? and (2) What kind of behaviours do prevent participation in play activities?

This was an ethnographic research (Corsaro & Eden, 1999) that made it possible to observe children’s activities in emotional situations and all the surrounding elements that formed the basis of participation in play activities in the children’s peer culture. ECE groups of three to six-year-olds were selected as the research field, fitting with the potential distribution in terms of their age in relation to the development of emotional intelligence. The research data consisted of video recordings and observations and field notes that were collected in three ECE centres in Finland in 2012–2013 for five months.

The collection of research material was originally intended to be carried out in addition to the work during one year by ethnographic observation. However, working full-time and in the roles of EC teacher, vice manager, and researcher proved ineffective in terms of data collection. So the main method for collecting the data was video recording. Data collection was carried out during one semester using both the rotating researcher method and videos. As a rotating researcher, the observation took place on a day-by-day basis in each ECE centre, while at the same time, in the other two ECE centres, the events were recorded on a video camera, which was turned on by the ECE staff. The camcorders recorded until the CDs were full, so there was no need to worry about turning it off. At the end of the day, the employee replaced the blank CD with a video camera ready for the next moment of shooting.

The permission to conduct this research was granted by the ECE centre administration, ECEC personnel, and children’s parents. For logistical reasons, one of the daycare centres was eventually excluded already at the time of acquiring the material. Children were also informed about the research. The video camera was placed in a playroom where children could play without adults’ direct control. The place of the camera was changed at least once in every ECE centre during the observation period. Altogether, the video material consisted of over 50 h of recording (113 separate recordings).

In this research, the field notes and research diary were a big help in analysing. The field notes and research diary provided a list of 18 questions with sub-questions that approached watching the videos. The questions focused on seeing similarities between the theoretical framework and field phase assumptions, as well as finding recurring core elements and indices that can be generalized (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007; Dey, 2005; Ford, 2014; Jordan & Henderson, 1995; Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2012; Wolcott, 1999). The analysis followed the thick description typical of ethnography (Corsaro & Eden, 1999) that was created through micro-analysis (Vogler et al., 2013) and participation framework (Goodwin, 2007). The micro-analysis focused on recognizing activities by cutting recorded episodes into pieces and profoundly analysing dialogues and nonverbal communication in the natural ECEC context (Kirk & Jay, 2018). The participation framework was used for analysing the occurrence of interaction between different people.

This research involved critical reflection of the ethical conduct of child research (Peltokorpi, Määttä, & Uusiautti, 2012). The purpose was to inform children about the research as well as possible. They were told that the researcher was interested in their playing and that the material was to be seen only by the researcher and no one else. They were taught to recognize when the recording was on. Children also were told that they can refuse recording and observation at any time. Also in the analysis phase, the children’s autonomy in terms of filming was respected, so if the material showed a significant reluctance on the part of the child to be filmed, then this video was no longer used as material. However, children were naturally curious about the camera, even enthusiastic about it, and accepted the research activity well. Awareness of challenges in child research was present all the time (Gallacher & Gallagher, 2008), including the analysis of power relations between children and adults in the ECE centre (Christensen & James, 2000) and the difficulty of reaching the child’s experience authentically (Corsaro & Eden, 1999; Emond, 2005).

Sometimes an ethnographer experiences problems in childhood research with the so-called in the role of over rapport, where the researcher commits too much to the culture he or she is researching into actors and special traits blinding to meanings (Atkinson & Hammersley, 2007). In this study, the issue was reflected before the start of data collection, concluding the researcher’s actions in relation to children. Also in some cases, researchers perceived children’s fooling around with the camera as a disturbing and constant factor, as Elina Paju in her dissertation (Paju, 2009). In this material, the goofing was not particularly repeated except for few jokes to the camera at the beginning. Pranking in participatory video ethnography can reflect children’s goal of getting an emotional response from the researcher or staff representative involved in the situation. The child thus mirrors his or her own actions to the reactions of adults. With a video camera alone, as in this study, ‘extra’ fooling around was futile because the desired response was not obtained.

Next, we will present the findings. The data excerpts have been anonymized and pseudonyms are used when referring to people appearing in the data.

Findings

General notions of the children’s peer culture

The observations strengthened the earlier conception of play being a central part of children’s peer culture in the ECE centre. Through play activities, children practised their socio-emotional skills widely. Play activities occurred strongly based on the children’s own culture and not so much as guided by adults.

Children seemed to travel through an activity to another in the ECE centre but they did not do that randomly but observed each other’s feelings and nonverbal rituals. It is impossible to join the play activities just anyhow, but children seemed to be good at recognizing whether it was a shared activity or side-by-side playing. A player could loudly inform others about his or her play activities to others in the playroom, but could be responded with just a smile – this informing was not even meant to lead to any other kind of communication. Children seemed to handle their peer culture through small talk that the adults did not get or even recognize.

Children were able to evaluate what kind of playing was not allowed in the adults’ opinion. The children knew that, according to rules, inappropriate language and rough-and-tumble play were forbidden as was playing with objects in other ways than they were meant to be used. Children internalized the rules and knew that adults were concerned about too big children sitting in a baby swing or pillow fight accompanied with lavatorial jokes.

Children were able to read their peers’ nonverbal gestures, movements, and expressions, and adjust their actions based on them in play and interaction situations. This is mirroring that means sharing the same state with others (see e.g. Falck-Ytter, Gredebäck, & von Hofsten, 2006; Pfeifer, Iacoboni, Mazziotta, & Dapretto, 2008). The original purpose of mirroring was to quickly find out by looking at the other whether there was a danger somewhere from which one should protect oneself. Mirroring between children illustrates their communication much more than just words.

Getting in the play activities

EPISODE 33

Kaisa, Elli, and Noora are playing with ponies after the snack. Ansa enters the room, and there is an adult present as well. Kaisa and Noora are sitting with backs toward the door, but Elli sees Ansa coming and quickly puts herself closer to other girls in the circle, and looks them in the eyes, and glances at the door. Ansa asks the girls what they are playing expecting that she can get in directly. Girls discuss in a louder voice and pretend that they do not hear Ansa. Ansa takes a look at the adult who is not observing the situation. Ansa repeats her question, directing it eventually to Noora whom she thinks would take her in the play. Ansa: ‘Girls? What are you playing? Noora?’ Noora has stopped playing but looks on the floor, clearly pondering which side she should take. Kaisa tries to reason that they probably have to clean their plays soon. Ansa is quiet and looks at the adult. Kaisa turns quickly to the adult being emphatic: ‘Is it so that we will go out soon? It is not worth starting a new play, is it?’ The adult responds absent-mindedly that it is not worth starting a totally new play. Kaisa looks at Ansa and shrugs her shoulders and pretends to be chagrined although the purpose was just to carry on playing threesome. Elli and Noora silently support this purpose.

Getting in the children’s play activities and leaving someone out involved certain rules and strategies. Four different strategies were recognized in this data: (1) Prowling the play activities; (2) Nonverbal communication; (3) Abstaining from critiquing; and (4) Showing enthusiasm and worming one’s way to play with a toy.

Prowling the play activities meant a strategy in which the child observed the play from a polite distance and for a while. In their peer culture, children appreciate each other and good manners. Yet, the manners can be different from ones in the adults’ culture. Surely, sometimes children can rush in the play activities guided by his or her desires, and sometimes a child had already earned permanent permission to enter any play. It seemed to be a question of chemistry, of a group of friends who are used to play with each other also outside the ECEC context, or of a child who is popular and a wanted playmate.

To others, getting in the play activities is not obvious, which is revealed by blaming utterances such as ‘Hey, don’t!’. A child has tried to join the play activities too eagerly without obeying the unspoken roles and received immediate feedback about his or her actions. Sometimes children can invite the prowler in play activities: ‘Would you like to play with us?’

The second strategy is nonverbal communication. The child seeks eye contact, waits for a smile, tests his or her position in the playgroup’s circle, or imitates the movements used in the play activities. The child tries to mirror the play and join in. Others express with nonverbal messages whether the new player is accepted, possibly accepted, or excluded.

Adults seemed to assume that children ask directly if they can join the play activities. But apparently, in the children’s peer culture, this is not a common strategy. Probably, it is clear to adults who are playing together and who does not. They can even categorize children by their friends, usual plays, toys, etcetera. This suits adults’ need for control, routine, and predictable daily activities. Children’s play is not following this pattern, but they can stay in play activities for half an hour or three minutes.

The third strategy was abstaining from critiquing. In other words, in order to not become rejected, children do not comment on play activities, toys, or players negatively but leave themselves an opportunity to become accepted in the play activities. They do not give advice or suggest changes in the play activities, and they can even start a parallel play to show that they know how to play and are committed and innovative. Imitating by far, however, the best form of flattering.

The fourth strategy was to show enthusiasm and worm one’s way to play with a toy. Toys are much appreciated in the child group, and therefore, one can get in the play activities with a good toy. A toy makes one more interesting, funnier, and bolder. This is why the bring-your-own-toy days are so important at the ECE centres. On the other hand, the days can be overwhelmingly negative if the toy is forgotten or the brought toy is forbidden or confiscated.

Excluding from the play activities

There are several reasons why someone does not become accepted in play activities. Tattlers are not popular or appreciated. Children who resort to adults’ help in mutual conflict are unwanted company. Telling the adult every wrongdoing does not increase a child’s popularity or make his or her status better. Seemingly the adult complimenting the tattler and scolding the wrongdoers do not improve the child’s position in the child group.

There are also situations in which the child genuinely feels being mistreated and tells this to an adult. However, in these situations, one reason can be the difficulty to understand other’s feelings or expressing one’s own. The child left outside the play activities can be confused and overwhelmed by not knowing why his or her company is not wanted. In many cases, the child does not understand the children’s peer culture includes unspoken rules about touching. It is experienced as intrusive if it does not follow the children’s cultural rules.

EPISODE 86

Miika enters the nap room where Heikki and Eino are playing with Ninja Turtles. Miika tells that his cousin has a real Ninja Turtles suit. The boys reply something in passing. Miika continues and approaches the boys. Miika shows some karate movements. Eino tells that his big brother does something wilder sport and shows movements. Heikki says: ‘Let’s continue the play.’ Miika joins the play but Heikki is clearly chagrined about it. Heikki pushes Eino to the ground as a joke and pretends to hit him in the back. Eino is groaning and tries to get up. Miika jumps in and pulls Heikki away on top of Eino and is making wild noises. Heikki forbids this strictly and pushes Miika away. Miika is a little bit confused and seeks support from Eino with a glance. Eino gets up and continues to play with Heikki. Miika tries to repeat the earlier karate movement but Heikki does not accept Miika in the play. Miika suggests that he could for example be others coach. Heikki says that there are no coaches in Ninja Turtles plays. Eino suggests that what if Miika was the supervisor of the equipment. Heikki says that he does not want to play Ninja Turtles anymore at all.

Children with poor emotional skills annoy others and are not wanted in the play activities. It seemed that becoming a member of a playgroup necessitates emotional intelligence. The child should understand and manage the special features of the children’s peer culture. When having trouble reading the unspoken emotional clues a child might try to imitate others but if he or she is not able to bring authentic content to the play, he or she might just annoy the others. If emotional skills are lacking, the child needs an adult’s help to understand those situations, manners, and practices that make the other withdraw and become irritated. The child might be so focused on his or her own will to join that he or she does not notice the other’s nonverbal messages whether it is ok to take part in the play activities (see also Burgoon & Bacue, 2003).

Dominating behaviour is not helpful either. Miika from the previous example can also become a dominating child, which is actually easy in the ECEC setting. Some children are masters of dominating and they use an adult as their weapon without the adult even realizing it. The child demands the others to play exactly how he or she wants and if the others do not agree, the child threatens to tell the adult that the others are not accepting him or her in the play activities. Actually, the others do not want to have him or her but they know it is wrong, and therefore, they would have to lie or admit to the adult that they are not interested in the child’s company.

If the children tell the adult that someone is trying to control the play, the dominating child might start crying or continue lying that actually the others try to boss him or her and he or she has not listened to him or her at all. The child in question is very well aware of his or her means to promote his or her own good. The child is not worried about a scolding by an adult, not at least in the same way as others are, because the child protects himself or herself all the time by lying and playing with other’s emotions. However, the child considers himself or herself as the victim and thus, does not understand that the others do not like him because of his or her dominating behaviour.

EPISODE 28

Saara goes to sit next to Neea and Maiju’s play with ponies. Neea is dissatisfied and comments immediately by saying: ‘Heyyy?!’ Saara replies that she was in this play first with Kaisu yesterday. ‘You can join too but let’s put everything like it was yesterday.’ Neea tries to say that they are already having their own play. Saara says strictly: ‘Yeah, but you can build yesterday’s play on and continue from where you left.’ The girls try to say that it is not fair. Maiju says that there should have been a note or it should have been lifted on top of a shelf where all the other plays that are to be continued were saved, like Olli and Pekka’s Lego construction. Saara says that if the girls do not agree with her, she goes to tell the teacher that the girls have deliberately broken her and Kaisu’s play. The girls give in to Saara’s will, and Saara starts moving the toys as she wishes. Neea asks Maiju if they could go play ‘kitchen’, but Saara starts sulking and says it is not fair to leave her alone. ‘You cannot do that! I will tell the adult if you do not accept me in your play.’ The girls remain sitting as they were.

The aforementioned episode shows a way that Saara has learned to work. She is not able to think further than the playing moment but looks at the situation through her own feelings. Dominating children try to reach thriving but with the wrong way. The opportunities for bullying and arbitrary behaviours just increase as other children know to stay alert with the dominating child and pretend the play to go on smoothly when adults are passing them. In the previous example, Saara does not pay attention to other’s hopes and is not able to express her own wishes in a flexible manner. She thinks that she is an equal playmate with others if the play continues together. She does not necessarily understand that the reason for others being unwilling to play is her own behaviour.

Dominating children are an unwanted company. At some point, all children avoid starting a play with them, and eventually, they are excluded because their threatening does not work any longer. At this point, the dominating children may know that they could not get the adult to believe in their story, which makes them unhappy and lonely. As a feeling, this is very unpleasant, and the dominating child does not understand that he or she let himself or herself in this situation by their own actions. Yet, they face disappointments poorly and not aware of the significance of expressing real emotions.

Discussion

Conclusion and implications

Observation research has shown that for ECEC workers, it is not easy to manage children’s emotional regulation (Köngäs, 2018) or to promote children’s playpartnerships in the children’s peer culture (Ahn, 2006; Ahn & Stifter, 2006; Broekhuizen, Slot, van Aken, & Dubas, 2017; Kirk & Jay, 2018; Morris, Denham, Bassett, & Curby, 2013). The adult should try to help to solve conflict situations without categorizing children into the good and the bad. Neither does it help children if the adult forces the others to take one child in the play activities when it is conflicting with the unspoken rules of children’s peer culture.

By observing children’s interaction, it is possible to recognize who is dominating, who is flexible, who is pretending, and who is withdrawing. Children can be taught to foresee socio-emotional challenges and to confront them. They also can be given stimuli and models to develop emotional skills. A quality ECEC provides children with a ground to balanced childhood and develop socially securely toward adolescence and adulthood (see e.g. Ranta et al., 2020). As the challenges of ECEC vary from decade to decade, the challenge of this era is to learn emotional intelligence (Corsaro, 2018; Köngäs, 2018).

In the research literature, ECEC workers are often described as adults who try to influence the children’s mutual relationships (McInnes, Howard, Miles, & Crowley, 2011). Killen and Smetana (1999) noticed that educators often reminded children about fairness and respect for others as the response to situations in which children had to take turns or there were not enough wanted items for everyone. There was a fear of breaking moral rules, which enabled educators to encourage children to play together and share (Denham & Brown, 2010; Diamond & Stacey, 2000). Children follow and repeat adults’ actions, words, and communication, and thus learn how to live and act. They are testing and learning influences from adults through practice, playing alone, and with others (Corsaro, 2018).

The adult can promote children’s relationships by trying to verbalize emotions that are experienced in various situations and to help children to recognize others’ emotional states. However, according to the findings of this research, the adults should sometimes contain themselves and let the children use their own playing strategies without interfering. The adults’ task is merely to provide a safe space that supports the learning and practising of social and emotional skills. Otherwise, the adults’ role is to act as a buffer in play negotiations that can escalate. The contribution of this research is that it helps adults to interpret the children’s peer culture and how children communicate within it with each other. Children’s intense interaction does not necessarily mean anything bad but if it leads to hurt feelings, then they will need the adult’s support.

Another implication based on the findings is that emotional skills education in ECEC is necessary. This should replace outdated commands of, for example, including everyone in play activities. These adults’ rules keep the adults’ eyes shut from the children’s peer relationships and trouble in them. Instead, the adult should explain to the child who is rejected or who is obtruding on play activities that he or she should try to interpret situations and recognize emotions that prevail in these kinds of interaction situations. This notion gets support also from Wang et al.’s (2019) research which showed that the children primarily sought stable and mutual relationships that could not be much enhanced through teachers’ deliberate play activities or other actions.

As an example Miika from episode 86 can find a way to join a play or become rejected. The options are to find a best friend who knows how to get in play activities or observe play activities from the side and learn the rules. Miika could join with force, and if not successful, threaten by telling to adults if not accepted in play activities. However, this excludes him from the peer group because he does not genuinely feel like being included. Thus, Miika does not necessarily understand why he is not liked. In the worst case, Miika goes on using power with demands, blackmailing, and repressing (e.g. by bullying). Or he might withdraw and feel inferior, become socially insecure and clumsy, and isolates himself (becoming possibly bullied).

The findings of this research are in line with previous findings of children’s play. For example, Coelho et al. (2017) noticed that children who manifest positive play behaviours are more accepted by peers and have more reciprocal friendships while play disruption and disconnection indicated that children who show these types of play behaviours have lower social acceptance and fewer reciprocal friendships. As our research focused also on the development of play situations, the research showed how important it is to recognize the nature of children’s peer culture, its rules, and influences on the play. This is not easy for adults (Burriss & Tsao, 2002; Wood, 2014).

Eventually, the ECE centres are quite functional places for learning emotional skills, and the adults can provide children with examples of how to manage relationships and interaction (Wood, 2014). When the adults support children’s permission to start their plays in a way that they can securely practice peer relationships, they enhance children’s abilities to learn emotional skills and forms of balanced interaction. Children can be taught what it means to understand one’s own and other’s emotions, and how to act in conflict situations in a productive way (McInnes et al., 2011). ECEC workers need conscious observation skills to notice whether the children’s mutual interaction is benevolent or not. Even if the play seems to go on smoothly, children’s gestures and expressions can reveal the reality. If the adult’s intuition tells something is not right in the play, this is usually the case. This requires tact (see also Uusiautti & Määttä, 2014) and willingness to teach emotional skills and positive behaviours from the children’s peer cultural perspective.

Limitations

Unlike earlier anthropologists, modern researchers have technological advantages in research (Kupiainen, 2017). It is not necessary to simultaneously observe and try to make notes. In this kind of research, the quality of video material becomes crucial. At the same time, the material was plentiful and it was being analysed from numerous perspectives. This increased the reliability and supported thick description. In addition, the recordings were analysed from the perspective if it seemed that the children were acting insecurely because of videoing.

The field notes were made and served as the supplementary material for analyses. This enhanced reflection as well. In addition, the research field was familiar to the first author of this paper who also collected the data. Her knowledge and familiarity with the context made it possible to do the right interpretations of the children’s behaviours (Knoblauch, Schnettler, & Raab, 2006; Kupiainen, 2017).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mirja Köngäs

Mirja Köngäs (PhD) is an independent post-doc researcher. Her research interests include developmental psychology, emotion research, and leadership psychology.

Kaarina Määttä

Kaarina Määttä (PhD) is a Professor of Educational Psychology (emerita), Faculty of Education, University of Lapland. Her research interests include study processes and caring teacherhood, tutoring and student guidance, love and human relationships as well as positive psychology and human resources.

Satu Uusiautti

Satu Uusiautti, PhD, is the professor of education and vice-rector of the University of Lapland, Finland. Her research interests are in positive psychology and development, and success and flourishing during life-span and various contexts of life.