Free from what? Limitations on Free Play

(1)

Degree Project with Specialization in Subject

15 Credits, First Cycle

Free from what? Limitations on Free Play

Fri från vad? Begränsning av den Fria leken

Anastasia Niemi

Atle Lindskoug

Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Early Years Education, 210 Credits

Date: 4/6 2019

Examiner: Robin Ekelund Supervisor: Katarzyna Herd CHILDREN, YOUTH AND

(2)

2

Foreword

We would like to thank each other for making this study happen. From an idea to an actual physical paper copy of a Bachelor's Thesis in Early Years Education. Anastasia who took on the role of “creative director” pushing this project to steadily take form and for her curiosity in questioning our choices for this study to push it further and laying out the plans for what comes next. Atle for being the stone hard “editor-in-chief” in making our thoughts precise, theory accurate as well as our grammar on point. As a team we worked seamlessly together, and our teamwork was as smooth as it was effective. We can truly say that we both stand behind each word, sentence and thought written in this study.

Furthermore, we would like to thank everyone who was involved in the making of this study. The helpful preschool teachers who took part in this study, thank you for lending your wise words. Our enthusiastic supervisor who had the patience to guide us through this process and the efficiency to always make time for us. Also, Malmö University deserves our thanks for the education molding us into being the futures professional preschool teachers as well as providing us with a physical place in the library to make this creative process possible.

Lastly, we would like to thank our lovely families and friends for the moral support that writing this thesis has required. Thank you!

(3)

3

Abstract

Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka hur den fria leken på svenska förskolor är begränsad för att gå i linje med förskolans uppdrag som det är presenterat i läroplanen. För att uppnå detta har vi intervjuat sju förskollärare på två svenska förskolor angående deras syn på den fria leken och hur den är begränsad. Det insamlade materialet är sedan analyserat med hjälp av Michel

Foucaults teorier samt Jennifer M. Gores mikro-praktiker om makt för att synliggöra hur den fria leken är begränsad och varför. De tre centrala teman som presenteras i läroplanen är: säkerhet och välmående; grundläggande och demokratiska värderingar samt lärande, utveckling och livslångt lärande. En hierarki bland dessa teman blev uppenbar där säkerhet ses som viktigast följt av de grundläggande och demokratiska värdena och sist lärande, utveckling och livslångt lärande. Vi fann även att förskollärarna hellre reglerar leken så att den stämmer överens med läroplanen än att bryta den samt att läroplanens tolkningsbarhet leder till olika strategier bland förskollärarna för att uppnå deras önskade resultat.

Keywords: Free Play, limitation, preschool, Foucault, National curriculum, power, fri lek, begränsning, förskola, makt, Lpfö18

(4)

(5)

5

1. Introduction

When children have left this world to partake in something magical, that is Free Play (Excerpt from interview 3)

As future preschool teachers we found ourselves intrigued by the concept of Free Play in the preschool, specifically how it is limited. How we as future professionals in our daily work are going to limit the magical world of children's Free Play, something we are already familiar with from personal experience at our internships during the course of this education. It became clear early on in the making of this study that Free Play, although viewed as important by the

preschool teachers interviewed, is often limited. In fact all of the interviewees mention that Free Play always comes with certain limitations and is never completely free within the context of the Swedish preschool. Examining what ways and what reasons exist to limit Free Play is something we view as relevant as the importance of play is strongly emphasized in the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). In other words, the preschool teachers job description entails both the limitation and preservation of children’s Free Play. This study aims to shed light on the motivations and strategies behind both the limiting and to some extent the preserving factors that affect the practice of Free Play.

According to the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) play is an important part of children's everyday activities in the preschool. According to Samuelsson and Sheridan (2001) the curriculum can be viewed as a reflection of the current values present in society as well as parts of the tradition and history of the preschool. There has also been a lot of research conducted on the importance and value of play in relation to the development of children. This led to the focus of this study being the forms of limitation and regulation placed on Free Play in order to align it with the goals laid out in the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018).

1.1 Disposition

This study is structured by introducing the purpose of the research as well as the research questions. The second chapter explains the theoretical framework along with the key theoretical

(7)

7

concepts. In addition, selected previous research that are relevant are introduced. This is

followed by a presentation of the method used in the gathering of the material as well as ethical considerations and selection. The analysis will consist of three parts where the gathered material is analyzed in accordance with the theories and previous research. This is followed by presenting the conclusions found in the analysis. Lastly there will be a discussion of the conclusion and how it relates to the rest of the study as well as the relevance for future preschool teachers.

1.2 Purpose of the research

The purpose of this study is to examine how preschool teachers control Free Play in order to align it with the task of the Swedish preschool as explained in the curriculum.

1.3 Research questions

This study aims to answer following research questions:

What is the purpose of Free Play according to the preschool teachers?

What are the central themes of the curriculum according to the preschool teachers? How do the preschool teachers regulate Free Play in order to align it with those themes?

(8)

8

2. Theory

This study’s theoretical framework is based on the theory of power by French sociologist Michel Foucault in the understanding presented by Todd May (2006), Gary Gutting (2005) and Dianna Taylor (2013) as well as an article by Professor of Education Jennifer M. Gore (1995) that introduces certain micro-practices of power used as an analyzing tool in this study. The concept of Free Play is defined by several theories introduced below.

2.1 Free Play

How can Free Play be characterized in the early year education and why is it important? Olofsson (1987) describes the criteria that define play in the following matter: it has to be fun and voluntary. Children’s play has a spontaneous characteristic and it does not have to have a goal or an aim. The act of playing is in and of itself the goal (Olofsson, 1987:11). For the

purpose of this study Free Play will be defined as when the children initiate the play. Even if the definition of what children's play consist of is not simply explained nor unambiguous there is a lot of research on the benefits play has on children's development.

According to Olofsson (1987) play can be described as a way for children to express their beliefs and memories and therefore seen to be valuable part of a childhood. Among other things, playing develops children's creativity and logical thinking as well as gives children the possibility to process their experiences through play (Olofsson, 1987).

Sheridan & Pramling Samuelsson (2001) describes the importance of play in regard to the children's development of a sense of participation as well as an understanding of rights. They also emphasize its importance as an arena for children to learn communicative competence. Thus, that playing can be seen as a crucial part of children's development and learning and play gives children freedom to have influence in their life by deciding the content of their Free Play (Sheridan & Pramling Samuelsson, 2001).

(9)

9

2.2 Power and control

In order to investigate the regulations and limitations adults cast on children's Free Play we will be using May´s (2006) interpretations of Foucault’s writings on power and how it functions. Foucault writes that power, as he sees it, arises in everyday practices, it comes from below. It works by taking a field of possible actions and constraining it so that certain ones are more likely to be taken. To clarify this one can compare power to violence. The two are different in that violence forces a body to do something whereas power acts as an action upon actions,

influencing behavior to conform to the norm rather than forcing compliance (May, 2006). As the focus of this study will be to investigate how Free Play in preschools is limited this theoretical framework contributes a relevant perspective as it brings to light the modes of power present in everyday practices, as Foucault puts it:

In thinking of the mechanisms of power, I am thinking rather of its capillary form of

existence, the point where power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their action and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives. (Foucault, 1991:39)

As mentioned above, in the Foucauldian sense as interpreted by Taylor (2013) power is viewed as coming from below, integrating into every individual. This is one of Foucault's five theses on power, the others being that: power is not a possession; power is not exterior to other relations; power relations are oriented in certain directions and power always comes with resistance (May 2006).

Furthermore Foucault divided disciplinary power into three central aspects: hierarchical

observation, normalizing judgement and examination (May, 2006:74). To illustrate this Foucault (May, 2006) uses the Panopticon, a design of a prison that has the prisoners in cells being

overlooked by a tower containing the guards. The guards can see the prisoners but not vice versa. Because of this the prisoners have to act as though they are always being observed, adjusting their behavior accordingly which means there does not actually have to be any guards in the tower, the prisoners watch themselves. Thus, hierarchical observation, as explained by Gutting (2005) through his interpretation of Foucault’s writings, means the ability to control people's

(10)

10

actions through surveillance. The knowledge that one is possibly being surveilled makes one change his/hers actions and act as is expected (Gutting, 2005:82). According to Foucault (May, 2006) surveillance both defined and regulated is a core practice in teaching used as a mechanism to increase efficiency. It may seem extreme to compare the preschool to a prison although it has relevance as the preschool is an institution that is, to some extent, structured in a similar way as prisons, factories and hospitals and thus subject to the same practices of power (May, 2006:74).

The second training of power that Foucault (May, 2006:74) describes is Normalizing judgement (later on in this study it is referred to as normalization). It refers to a distinctive feature of power where the acts of an individual are judged and ranked on how similar they are in comparison to everyone else (Gutting, 2005:86). Normalization, as well as surveillance are two of the key concept we will be using in the analysis of the conducted interviews to see how the actions of preschool teachers influence children's Free Play situations, we will go into greater detail about this later. It can be said that every individual is in many ways the subject of modern power because power is diffused throughout a society and can be described as a number of micro-centers instead of a single center of power (Gutting, 2005:87).

Lastly the third part of disciplinary power, according to Foucault (May, 2006), is Examination. A combination of both normalizing and surveillance often applied with an instrument of

disciplinary power that makes individuals discipline or regulate their own behavior (Taylor, 2013). Though in Swedish preschools the children's performance is not graded we will later on in the paper illustrate in what way examination can be seen as a practice of power in preschools.

2.3 Micro-Practices of power

In order to get clearer concepts that will be used to analyze the material another major theoretical framework that this study is going to use are the eighth micro-level practices of power described by Jennifer M. Gore in her article On the Continuity of Power Relations in Pedagogy (1995:168). Although this article is over 20 years old we found it relevant and useful in the analysis of our

(11)

11

study as it clearly outlines the different power relations in pedagogy as well as contributes tools, derived from Foucault's writings, to aide in the analysis of those relations.

The micro-level practices of power commonly practiced in pedagogy are surveillance, normalization, exclusion, classification, distribution, individualization, totalization and regulation (Gore, 1995:168). Some of which are used to analyze the empirical material of this study to illustrate how the techniques of power regulate the preschool children's Free Play.

Surveillance is the same as hierarchical observation explained above and is characterized as

watching, supervising, observing closely and expecting to be watched.

Normalization is the same as normalizing judgement explained above and is defined as invoking,

requiring or conforming to the norm. Norms differentiate individuals from another by

comparison. By referring to a standard of what is expected of one it therefore modifies the way people act (Gore, 1995:171).

Exclusion is the act of excluding certain actions or ways of being that does not conform to the

norm hence establishing it. It is closely related to normalization but works by pointing out behavior that is not acceptable (Gore, 1995:173).

Distribution is the act of dividing bodies in space by arranging, isolating and ranking them. Gore

(1995:176) argues that the teachers capacity to make these decisions reinforce the teacher-student power relation.

(12)

12

3. Previous research

Some of the previous studies that we are going to introduce has helped to mold the theoretical framework and clarify certain points of view that this study concentrates on, the adult limitation of children's Free Play. The scan of the field has also provided several concepts that enabled the analysis of the gathered material. Two of the previous studies that are relevant concentrate on how and why children's physical Free Play is regulated from a safety aspect as well as possible influence these regulations have on children's development. Sandseter and Sando (2016) focused their study on how a change in focus towards children's safety in Norwegian early-childhood education has limited their outdoor play. The researchers used a questionnaire with open ended questions in order to gather data on how early-childhood education and care settings worked to prevent injury and whether a focus on safety in society affected play and activities in the preschool. The authors described several benefits of risky play such as the positive experiences gained by the children as well as the training in risk taking and learning how to handle risk gained in these activities. The study found that many restrictions on children's Free Play such as not allowing climbing, high speed or rough and tumble play are common in Norwegian

preschools as a response to the increased focus on children's safety, a fear of injuries being the main concern (Sandseter & Sando, 2016).

Further, Wyver, Tranter and Naughton (2010) also argued that children's play has become limited by adults due to a fear of risk and what the consequences might be. They made a

comparison from experiences on the views on children's safety between Norway and Australia in order to demonstrate that the surplus safety is not necessarily result of living in a modern

Western society. Concluding that if the points of view of children and city-wide perspectives are aligned the power of limitations made by adults motivated by surplus safety would be decreased (Wyver, Tranter & Naughton 2010). Safety is an aspect that is highlighted in our study as well but from another view point, from the point of view of the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) and the interpretations of the individuals interviewed.

(13)

13

Kassahun Tigistu Weldemariam (2014) conducted a study at a Swedish preschool that focused on adult involvement in children’s Free Play. Using unstructured observations of various play episodes the author found that situations occur that necessitate adult interruption of children’s play. These interruptions are handled by various strategies and techniques that lead to different results. The study found that the interruptions made in a more pedagogically sound matter have a positive outcome as it benefits the children’s development.

A different perspective on the assumptions and attitude of teachers in the participation in the children's Free Play was introduced by Tsai (2015). It is explained in the study that teacher’s actions regulating children's play can differ depending on the teacher’s educational philosophy, familiarity with the children as well as general situations. It is emphasized that all of these factors have influence how the teachers act to regulate Free Play (Tsai, 2015).

Another study (Wood, 2014) critically examined children's individual and group choices during Free Play in order to bring to light how social power relations are put into play in different contexts. This study can be seen as valuable in order to understand certain assumptions made about the opportunities Free Play offers for children's development and learning (Wood, 2014). The author (Wood, 2014) concluded that the discourse of Free Play needs to be reconsidered in light of how choice relates issues of agency and power are played out. It is useful in

understanding how the discourse of Free Play is influenced by power relations, however our study also adds a point of view on how the national curriculum and the adult-child power relations influence this discourse. However our study examined those assumptions from an aspect of the curriculum with the help of the individual assumptions that become clear from the gathered material.

In relation to the Foucauldian aspect of this study, Gores (1995) study was of great help. It used observation in different pedagogical settings in order to bring to light the micro-level practices of power and illustrate how these micro-practices of power are used in pedagogy, attempting to advance individuals learning. These are based on Foucault's analytics of power relations in

(14)

14

modern society and some of the concepts, outlined above, were used in the analysis of the gathered material.

Fenech and Sumsion (2007) on the other hand focused their study on critically examining power relations present in the regulation of early childhood services. In order to do this the author (Fenech & Sumsion, 2007) drew from an Australian study on how qualified preschool teachers perceive that regulatory requirements influence their professional practice. They found that preschool teachers have two different strategies of resistance towards the increased regulation of the preschool. First, to position regulation as an ally in order to resist threats to what they view as a quality practice. Second to position themselves in multiple power relations in order to

strengthen their resistance. They concluded that preschool teachers need to engage in “critical reflexive processes” as well as “actively seek to negotiate power relations at multiple sites” in order to be “active agents” and not “docile bodies” (Fenech & Sumsion, 2007).

Lastly a Swedish study conducted by Brodin and Renblad (2015) used questionnaires distributed to preschool teachers and child care workers in order to study their views on the national

curriculum. They found that preschool teachers were positive to the curriculum and used it as a way of improving the quality of the preschool. Even though this study was made using the previous curriculum it can still be viewed as relevant to our study as it reflects the views that preschool teachers have regarding the curriculum.

The themes of power, security and restriction on children's Free Play can be seen to build a relevant framework. This study brings an addition to this field with its specific focus on how Free Play is limited to align with the tasks of the Swedish preschool.

(15)

15

4. Method

For the purpose of this study a qualitative research method was selected as according to Hillén, Johansson and Karlsson (2013) it is suitable for explaining and understanding complex and contradictory phenomena, Free Play in this case. There is no set method for conducting qualitative research rather several different ones can be chosen, for example different types of observations or interviews. In order to answer the research questions posed in this study qualitative interviews were chosen as we aimed to learn the personal reflections of the interviewees on the selected topic. More specifically individual interviews were chosen over group interviews as this gives an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences and beliefs of the person interviewed (Hillén, Johansson & Karlsson, 2013). This was viewed as relevant for this study as we aim to examine the interviewees’ individual interpretations and thoughts regarding the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) as well as Free Play.

We began the fieldwork by contacting the preschool directors at two Swedish preschools to get their approval. We then interviewed seven licensed preschool teachers to gather their perspective on Free Play as a practice, and how it is limited. The audio from the interviews was recorded using the preschools own equipment and then transcribed and sent back to the participants so they could review their answers and add or redact statements and comments if they so wished, one of the interviewees chose to add to his previous answers. We audio recorded the conducted interviews so that we were able to transcribe the gathered data. By choosing to audio record our interviews, we could avoid taking notes of the answers and so eliminate a source of bias

(Bryman, 2016) that could have occurred.

During the first two interviews we conducted, the teachers were given a paper with the questions we were going to ask. Our thought being that this would help structure the interview and keep it on subject. However, during the later interviews we decided against this, as we wanted greater control over the ordering and structure of the interview.

(16)

16

We kept the interview questions open-ended so that the interviewees could answer in their own words, giving longer answers as this would be relevant for our analysis (Bryman, 2016).

Still, we lead the discussions forward by reacting with follow-up questions such as asking if the interviewees can clarify something they have talked about or repeating keywords the

interviewees had used, all tactics mentioned by Kvale (1997) in order for the interviewees to be more encouraged to speak.

As a disadvantage for interviews conducted with open-ended questions can be mentioned that it is more time consuming to transcribe (Bryman, 2016). Yet, we felt the benefits outweighed the costs, as we also wanted to analyze the specific language used in the answering of the questions. The interviews were conducted in Swedish and then parts that were analyzed were translated into English.

4.1 Method of analysis

As a method for analyzing the gathered material we went through several different stages. Firstly, we began by sorting the material by the interview questions as we found answers to the questions in varying positions of the transcripts. After that, the interviewees’ answers were put into the different categories by using the eight micro-practices of power of Foucault that Gore (1995) used in analyzing daily practices of pedagogy.

The material was then compressed to specific examples of these methods of power, that were then compared to each other within the different categories in order to bring to light the

reasoning and underlying motivations of these practices of power on Free Play. Lastly, this was put into relation to the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) in order to bring to light the underlying values that influence Free Play and how it acts as a normalizing practice in the Swedish preschool.

This study is made by using an abductive approach described by Alvehus (2013) a combination using both inductive and deductive approaches. Where the study originates from the theory then processes the gathered material in the light of the theoretical frames to see how the theory can be applied to the material (Alvehus, 2013).

(17)

17

4.2 Ethical considerations

This study is conducted by following the ethical guidelines of The Swedish Research Council (2002) as well as the General Data Protection Regulation (2016). These guidelines includes a consideration of consent, information requirement, confidentiality requirement and requirement against exploitation.

A written consent was signed by the participants to agree to take part in this study. The consent also entailed a detailed explanation how the conducted material would be handled only by us and our supervisor and that the consents were left to the person responsible for the course at the University of Malmö to be saved appropriately and in confidence. We gave a paper copy of the written consent to the participants with our contact information in case they had further questions or concerns regarding their participation in this study.

The information requirement was fulfilled by explaining to the participants that the gathered material is only used in this study as well as an explanation on the purpose of this study being given.

We audio recorded the conducted interviews in a private setting (separate room) with the devices used being the preschools technical devices. After the audio files were transcribed into word documents that were password locked on computers. The original audio files were deleted after transcription. No names, only the number of the interviews, were used in the transcription documents retaining a complete anonymity of the participants and preserving the confidentiality requirement.

In order to fill the requirement against exploitation we told all our interviewees that participation in this study is completely voluntary and could be terminated at any given moment. We also sent the transcribed interview answers to each participant to read through to see if there is something they wanted to delete or add.

(18)

18

4.3 Selection

The selection for this study consisted of two Swedish preschools, the reasoning behind this being that two would give a broader perspective for the study. Seven preschool teachers that work with different child-groups where chosen to be interviewed in order to gain an expanded view of different individual beliefs and experiences for a more detailed analysis to be possible. More could have been added, though we felt that the scope of the study would not allow it and seven preschool teachers working with different child groups at two different preschools gave a varied selection. Only certified preschool teachers were selected for the interviews as this was the most relevant for our future profession as well as the purpose of the study seeing as licensed preschool teachers are expected to have greater knowledge concerning the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). We chose to include preschool teachers that worked with all different age groups of children, as this would give a broader view of different kinds of Free Play and how they were limited, as well as the differing motivations behind this. The interviewees were mixed gender and approximately between the ages of 30-60. The interviewed preschool teachers had different amount of working experience approximately between 5-35 years. The diversity in the preschool teacher’s ages and experiences contributes to the study by adding a dimension of variety.

(19)

19

5. Analysis

The analysis of this study is divided into three sections contracted from the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018): wellbeing and safety; democratic and fundamental values; development and learning and a lifelong learning desire to learn.

5.1 Wellbeing and safety

In this chapter we aim to examine how the concepts of wellbeing and safety, outlined in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018), are constructed within the context of Free Play. More specifically, how the regulation and limitation on children's Free Play and the practices of power are used and affected by the curriculum. There are several examples throughout the gathered material where the reason for interrupting children's Free Play are directly connected to what the preschool teachers view as concerns regarding the health of the children.

It is completely getting out of hand you have to intervene [...] when we see five children laying on top of one it might be dangerous, you could die from the pressure. (Excerpt from interview 5) It is a lot of physical contact [...] sometimes it is a big pile and eventually someone gets a little sad and in that case I think you should intervene. (Excerpt from interview 3)

In the examples above one of the teachers describes the play as being “dangerous”, stating that “you could die” indicating a focus on the safety of the children, safety that in this case concerns physical contact. As the teachers invokes death and danger in relation to Free Play there does also seems to be a certain degree of fear on the teachers’ part. This can be put into the context of another study that states that the preschool teachers are worried about being sued by parents in the event that the kids are injured (Wyver et al, 2010:273). As several of the preschool teachers interviewed referred to the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) when asked about the importance of Free Play, they placed a great deal of importance on this document. Therefore, this fear could amount to not fulfilling the requirements laid out in the curriculum in their daily actions as professionals, specifically in regards to the wellbeing of the children.

(20)

20

In the second example, which on the surface appears to be the same as the first, children piling on top of each other, the teachers instead describes a child getting “a little sad” as being the point at which direct involvement from the teacher is needed. This indicates that sadness is an

emotional state that does not conform to the norm and thus play that leads to it is excluded (Gore, 1995:173). This says something about the perceptions of wellbeing that the preschool teacher in question has, it concerns an emotional aspect of the child's health, specifically sadness. As the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) does not directly state what it means by wellbeing it is up to the preschool teachers to interpret what it means and in this case it is viewed as not being sad. This stands in contrast to what another teacher answered when asked what the purpose of Free Play is. Stating that feelings, specifically naming feelings, is a big benefit of Free Play as it is a platform that enables emotional development which aligns with (Sheridan & Pramling

Samuelsson, 2001) views on the importance of play in children’s development.

In both the examples the preschool teachers states a need for “intervening” in the Free Play, excluding (Gore, 1995:173) certain types of play that do not conform to the norm of safety and wellbeing laid out in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). The teachers seem to rely on their own interpretation of the curriculum and act according to it.

Several examples of excluding (Gore, 1995:173) certain aspects of Free Play so that it conforms to the norm (May, 2006:74), which in this case is the values and tasks laid out in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018), can be found in the material.

If you throw this big rock it could end up somewhere on your friends body where it does not belong. A rock that big hurts, someone could get injured. And give them another alternative [...] Is it hitting a target that is interesting, well look here try to hit this instead. (Excerpt from interview 5)

In the example above the type of play, throwing things, is not the problem. It is rather the act of throwing things at each other that is not okay. The reasoning behind this being explained to the children by the teacher as potentially causing “injury” In this case the play is not straight out cancelled but rather the teacher gives a safe alternative, “Here throw at this instead”. Thus normalizing (Gore, 1995:171) the play by excluding the parts that he does not consider safe. A common technique also described by the teachers when it came to normalizing their play was

(21)

21

asking the children questions such as “what do you think will happen?” and “what are you doing?” showing that although the preschool does not have grades or tests, examination (May, 2006:76) is present and commonly used.

They play nicely or some sort of opposite, that they do not play nicely (Excerpt from interview 1)

In the excerpt above it becomes clear that the teachers view is dependent on the personal

interpretation of what “nice” play is, as much as to the consideration of what can be described as an opposite to the aforementioned nice play. Does “nice play” cater to the criteria of being mentioned in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) and the opposite of nice reflect Free Play that does not fill these criteria?

The curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) also states that the preschool days need to be structured in order to ensure the children's wellbeing and several examples of this were given in the interviews. The daily schedule, mealtimes and rest, were given as reasons to interrupt Free Play. However, when possible, the preschool teachers try to ensure that the play is allowed to continue either after the activities related to wellbeing or structure those activities so that the play can be continue during.

When one of the preschool teachers that work with the youngest children was asked how she thought the Free Play was limited she answered.

If we have Free Play in our classroom, they have to stick to our classroom. They cannot wander to a different classroom, they cannot go outside. (Excerpt from interview 6)

This shows more focus on the physical distribution of the bodies of the children within the space (Gore, 1995:176). Motivating this with the need for adult supervision, specifically in regards to the youngest children. This means that in order for play to be considered safe it has to happen in the presence of an adult, a place without an adult is not considered safe. This was partly not the case for the older children, except when there was a risk for discrimination between the children indicating that the teachers working with older children are more concerned with them hurting one another whereas the teachers working with the younger children are more concerned with them hurting themselves.

(22)

22

In regards to the safety and wellbeing of the children the preschool teachers interviewed strive to be present, letting the children play freely until they observe behavior that does not conform to the norm of safety and wellbeing. When this type of behavior is observed, they intervene by excluding (Gore, 1995:173) the unwanted behavior. In some cases by terminating the play completely, but in most cases by excluding only certain parts of the play thus conforming it to the norm (Gore, 1995). In order to facilitate the surveillance (Gore, 1995:169) they divide the children into smaller groups and dictate where they are to play, distributing them (Gore, 1995:176). In certain cases the type of play, running for example, is not viewed as safe in the current environment and is then moved to a different one, outside. This stands in contrast to the findings of a Norwegian study (Sandseter & Sando, 2016:196) where concerns regarding the safety of the children led to a prohibition on certain types of play such as climbing.

There seems to be a certain hierarchy present when it comes to Free Play and the reasons to limit it. All the teachers interviewed agreed that Free Play is important and has value to the children. However there exists reasons for cancelling or limiting it. Aligning with the study by Tsai (2015:1029) that emphasizes that preschool teachers usually intervene in children's Free Play actively and are aware that a certain level of sensibility is required to do because the value of play is considered significant. As described above the safety and wellbeing of all the children at the preschool seem to place rather high in this hierarchy. However, the teachers constantly aim not to terminate the play but rather influence it in such way that it conforms to the tasks laid out in the curriculum, aligning with the notion laid out by Fenech and Sumsion (2007:109) of positioning regulation as an ally in order to resist threats to what they view as a quality practice. The teachers base their interventions on the degrees of physical contact between the children; the mood of the children and the place in which the children play.

5.2 Democratic and fundamental values

In this chapter, we aim to examine how the democratic and fundamental values laid out in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) are taught and enforced within the context of Free Play. When asked what Free Play was, several of the teachers stated that it is when the children are allowed to decide what to do, when they are in charge and not the adults. However, one teachers stated that:

(23)

23

We want to be in control so in situations where you let go [...] it gets a little difficult. (Excerpt from interview 1)

This can be interpreted to mean that Free Play is uncontrolled which in turns brings a certain degree of difficulty. Specifically in regards to the democratic and fundamental values described in curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). These entail, among other things, that everyone is treated with respect and that all children have a right to influence the daily content of the preschool. The curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) states that these values need to be ensured at all times, even during the activities that are otherwise viewed as uncontrolled and free. This constitutes a clear challenge, if the Free Play is uncontrolled how then can the teachers ensure that the content as well as the way children play uphold the democratic and fundamental values?

Out on the yard the children are not allowed to play on their own in the bushes. And that is because of the risk of bullying or violations against each other when we adults can’t see them. Partly because they can hit each other and also exclude each other, by saying hurtful things to each other, things they would not say in front of an adult (Excerpt from interview 7)

In the example above one of the preschool teachers explained that the children are not allowed to play behind bushes by themselves because of the lack of adult supervision there leading to a risk of bullying and violation aligning with the notion of children's agency described by Wood (2014:14). This indicates that the preschool teachers take actions to prevent children from violating the norms related to the democratic and fundamental values mentioned in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). In this case, the limitations concerns the distribution (Gore, 1995:176) of the children allowing Free Play in certain places and not others.

Children are not allowed to verbally insult each other and so on. Nor to discriminate anyone (Excerpt from interview 4)

In this example, a greater importance is placed on the contents of what the children say and not what they play. Once again showing how differences in how the teachers interpret the curriculum leads to different strategies in ensuring the Free Play of the children align with the curriculum.

It becomes clear from both of these excerpts that the norm as interpreted by the teachers involves not insulting, excluding, violating or discriminating anyone. The children might be aware of this

(24)

24

norm and conform to it in front of adults but there exists a clear concern from the teachers’ part that they might not follow it in a Free Play situation that is unsupervised, aligning with Woods (2014:14) findings that children's choices in relation to Free Play exists within shifting power structures and relationships. The question arises if there is a risk of slipping from the norm in Free Play, because it is not as closely supervised by adults. This leads to a limitation of certain places and types of play that allows this type of behavior to occur, thus normalizing (Gore, 1995:171) the play to align with the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018).

It is safety first but you intervene in more situations than that [...] If someone gets bullied, it is always you that gets to be the dog and I always get to be the owner, I decide over you (Excerpt from interview 5)

In the previous excerpt, the preschool teacher is describing the hierarchy behind the reasoning of limiting children's play. In the quote it can also be seen that much of the considerations are based on personal judgement of the situation by the teacher.

It seems that the preschool teachers hold the fundamental and democratic values in high regard and therefore if children violate what the teachers interpret as the norms concerning these values within the Free Play it is a reason to terminate the play. By excluding certain types of play or playing, the teachers are able to normalize the behavior of the children (Gore, 1995:171). This is how the micro-practice of power exclusion can be described (Gore, 1995:173). By marking what is not allowed, in this case to verbally insult someone, this kind of undesired behavior is

excluded. It simply is something that is not tolerated by the teachers, even within Free Play situations where children are to some extent free to create the content of their play. There is however room for individual interpretation and evaluation in regards to where the line is drawn.

Another teacher brought up an interesting point that “children are children and adults can ever be children again” (Excerpt from interview 5) explaining that it is necessary to create a platform for children where they can play freely from adults with other children as equals.

(25)

25

It can be said that Free Play is commonly understood by the interviewed preschool teachers as a sort of a platform for children to express themselves, a value in itself also mentioned in the curriculum.

This is also the democratic aspect weighing in. That they (children) should feel that they have influence and can influence what they want to do. (Excerpt from interview 6)

Ensuring that through Free Play children are given the opportunity to have influence. A

democratic value in itself mentioned in the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). Tsai (2015:1029) points out a controversy between the desirability of teachers participation in children's play and that children should be encouraged to decide for themselves which activities to engage in which was reflected in our material. So what are the children free from when they are playing? Does this mean that the children can influence as long as they follow the existing norms? Norms that have been created by the teachers through their interpretation of the curriculum.

5.3 Development, learning and a lifelong desire to learn

In this chapter, we aim to examine how development and learning as well as the concept of a life-long desire to learn are achieved within Free Play.

It is where you can capture the children's interests, many assume we should observe the children and capture their interests in the Free Play (Excerpt from interview 7)

It becomes clear from the excerpt above that Free Play is viewed as a place where the teachers can capture the children's interests in order to better model activities after them. This goes in line with the notion of a desire for lifelong learning which involves learning being fun and rewarding (Lpfö18, 2018). The teachers make use of surveillance (Gore, 1995:169) in order to achieve this goal, placing themselves close to the play in order to observe it, using what they learn in order to model the preschools environment and their planned activities in order to align with the

children's interests. This can also be tied together with the earlier chapter, as it allows a certain kind of participation from the children. A way to influence how their days at the preschool are structured aligning with the aim of the preschool to rest upon democratic values.

(26)

26

Through their observations of the Free Play the teachers also gain a measure of control over the play itself (May, 2006), as discussed in the earlier chapters they do intervene and influence the play to align with the curriculum. How then is this put into play in relation to development, learning and a life-long desire to learn? When asked what the purpose of Free Play was the most prominent answers were communication, social interaction, language and taking turns. This indicates, that the type of play most valued by the teachers is a play that consists of these key elements, role-play for example. None of the preschool teachers answered anything related to physical play even though the curriculum stresses the importance of the development of

children's motor skills indicating that there is room for interpretation when it comes these goals as well. Because of the fact that the teachers value different types of play differently, situations arise where they intervene in the children's Free Play in order for it to align with the teachers’ interpretation of the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018).

Everything depends very much on us teachers [...] our view on Free Play. If I see a situation unfolding where children can learn something, for example communication or social interaction, then I do not limit it (Free Play). But if in my eyes the play does not contribute to anything and is just running around in that case, I as a teacher can control it or regulate it. (Excerpt from

interview 7)

As in the excerpt above the teacher describes that the teacher needs to see a certain aspect of learning in the Free Play in order for it to be valuable. As will be shown below the teachers view Free Play as having value in and of itself however this just concerns certain kinds of Free Play. The kind of Free Play that is aligned with the curriculums concept of lifelong desire to learn and supports children's development and learning.

We have had discussions about play for plays sake or if us teachers should take part in the Free Play and if we see an opportunity, develop it into a learning situation [...] it

is a fine line between destroying and influencing (excerpt from interview 1)

Some of the interviewed preschool teachers mentioned that the line between Free Play and learning is hard to distinguish. It was made clear by the teachers that Free Play has a value in and of itself and is seen as learning for the children to a certain extent. But not valued enough so that the Free Play should stay uninterrupted at all times. Only at times when it contributes to the curriculums aims of development and learning. Tsai (2015:1029) mentions that teacher participation in child's play enriches the children’s learning and enhances their development.

(27)

27

Three of the preschool teachers mention that they need to have respect for the children's Free Play and respect the fact that they sometimes do not want adults interfering with their play.

However certain points came across that reveal that there is certain kinds of Free Play that gets easily terminated because it is viewed as useless from the point of view of learning and therefore needs to be terminated. In other word there is certain kind of Free Play that does not contribute to the curriculums (Lpfö18, 2018) aim to promote and develop the life-long learning.

But if I see that the Free Play does not contribute to anything, it just consists of running around then I, as a teacher, can control and limit it. You sit over there and do this and you go ride a bike or swing. (Excerpt from interview 7)

But if I see that the play does not have a purpose or does not work, that it is maybe just standing and throwing things then maybe as an adult I can intervene and control it. Ask the children what they are playing? (Excerpt from interview 6)

In the excerpts above two different strategies become apparent in relation to limiting and

controlling Free Play that the teachers view as “not contributing” or not having a “purpose”. The first teacher uses distribution (Gore, 1995:176) in order to separate the children and get them to do something that she views as constructive. Interestingly by separating the children it is now impossible for their new play to align with the key elements described earlier. As they are no longer playing together interaction, communication and taking turns cannot be practiced.

The second teacher uses examination (May, 2006:76) in order to align the children’s play with her interpretation of the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018). By asking questions of the children, even though they are open ended, it becomes clear that what they are currently doing does not

conform to the norm (May, 2006:74), it “has no purpose”. This strategy, unlike the first teachers, does align with the key elements as it invites to a conversation and aligns with the aim of the preschool resting on democratic values as it allows the children some amount of influence. Interestingly the second teacher works with the youngest children, many of which have not yet developed their language. Whereas the first teacher works with the older children where a dialogue could be viewed as more constructive.

(28)

28

6. Conclusions

The purpose of the Free Play according to the preschool teachers has been shown to involve several different aspects, specifically they view it as a place to practice communication, social interaction, language and taking turns as well as an arena to practice their democratic rights by influencing the content of their daily lives at the preschool by choosing their own activities within Free Play, as well as influencing the adult planned activities through the adult observation of their Free Play.

When it comes to what the central themes of the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) are according to the preschool teachers three categories became apparent: wellbeing and safety; fundamental and democratic values as well as learning, development and a lifelong desire to learn. However, because the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) leaves room for interpretation by not defining concepts such as safety and wellbeing it is up to the teachers to interpret their meanings. This leads to a variety of responses to different situations by different teachers and examples of this can be seen throughout the material. However as mentioned earlier there does seem to exist a certain hierarchy when it comes to the aims of the preschool laid out in the curriculum, that is partly constructed within the daily practice of the preschool. Safety is viewed to have the highest importance. Play that is not considered safe or viewed as having a detrimental effect on the children's wellbeing, is the type of play most often intervened upon. Although different teachers have different interpretations of what constitutes safety and wellbeing they all view it as on top of the hierarchy. The fundamental and democratic values outlined in the curriculum comes closely behind safety and wellbeing. Play that is viewed as not conforming to these norms is often intervened upon and made to conform. This has been illustrated in examples concerning violation and bullying being terminated immediately. Learning, development and a desire for lifelong learning, although viewed as important by all the teachers takes a backseat to the other two. The notion of “playing for the sake of playing” was described by some of the preschool teachers. This involves play that the teachers view as not having a clear purpose readily apparent to them. This type of play is sometimes intervened upon, but often left alone, as long as it

(29)

29

conforms to the norms related to safety and wellbeing, as well as to the fundamental and democratic values.

In relation to the preschool teachers influence Free Play in order to align with the national curriculum (Lpfö18, 18) it became clear that different types of interventions gives different results and the preschool teachers know this, and therefore choose what ways to restrict Free Play according to the desired result. In detail, the different interventions mentioned can include asking questions, totally prohibiting the play or modifying the play by for example offering for it to be continued in another place or time even if it is commonly mentioned by the preschool teachers that once children’s Free Play is disrupted by adults it hardly ever continues in the same form and to some extent loses its attractiveness.

The teachers are aware that Free Play is limited however they would rather influence it, aligning it with the norm than terminate it. It can also be confirmed that all the preschool teachers

appreciated Free Play and said that it is an important part of preschool children's daily life. Additionally many of the interviewees mentioned that they try to protect children's Free Play by offering additional times or places for it if the reason for terminating the play is based on the daily activities and schedule. This notion can be interpreted as reflecting the preschool teachers’ appreciation of Free Play as well as seeing a value in the Free Play. In addition, it became clear from the interviews that the teachers cherish Free Play that occurs between children as they bring up that they do not prefer to “disturb” children's play. Furthermore, this study shows that

regardless of the background (age and experience) of the licensed preschool teachers, Free Play and the benefits associated with it, are greatly valued.

(30)

30

7. Discussion

In relation to the previous research conducted in this field, we found that teachers interfere in children's Free Play, which was described by both Tsai (2015) and Weldemariam (2014). This could be seen throughout the material that the preconceptions of limitations by adults on

children's Free Play is viewed as interfering and has a negative effect on the flow of the play but often brings a value of learning. The Norwegian study on safety found that certain types of play became prohibited as a response to safety concerns, this was not the case in our study as

preschool teachers instead tried to influence the play in order to align it with the curriculum. In comparison to the previous studies on regulating children's Free Play for physical safety reasons (Sandseter & Sando, 2016; Fenech & Sumsion, 2007) our study shows that since what

constitutes safety is not specified in the curriculum it is always based on individual interpretations and acted upon according to preschool teachers individual considerations.

Even though the micro-practices of power laid out by Gore (1995) are over 20 years old they are still applicable to pedagogical practices. However in this study we chose to only use certain micro-practices that would add clearer concepts to the analysis of the material. A key aspect of the Foucauldian notion of power is that by excluding certain kinds of behavior it enables others. Although, this has not been discussed in this study it is worth reflecting on what types of

behavior the limitation of children’s Free Play enables.

In regards to the methods used in this study, observation as a method for gathering material could have been used as an addition and might have given a clearer view of the actions of the preschool teachers in relation to what they said. However, due to the limitation of time and the scope of this study it was not possible as well as not acquiring consent from enough children we chose to only conduct interviews with the preschool teachers.

(31)

31

7.1 Relevance of the study

In conclusion, this study can be seen as relevant to preschool teachers and other professionals working or researching within the context of the Swedish preschool in order to help understand the impact individual actions can have by restricting children’s Free Play, the reasons behind these actions and the strategies used. More specifically because Free Play is often limited in one way or another it is important to reflect on the reasoning behind this limitation in order to not needlessly interrupt it and lose the many benefits Free Play brings. The way in which the preschool teachers choose to limit Free Play influences the quality of the play which means it is important to be mindful of the strategies used to align the play with the aims of the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018).

As the curriculum (Lpfö18, 2018) influences the content of the preschool and how it is formed it is therefore important to be aware that it is open to interpretation. For instance, the three central themes in the curriculum found in this study are used by the teachers as a motivation for limiting Free Play and thus has a direct effect on the quality of the preschool. Also, the preschool

teachers’ interpretation of the curriculum has an impact on how much freedom is given to children’s Free Play as well as how much time it has allotted in relation to the activities planned by the preschool teachers.

7.2 Continued research

As a proposition to continued research it can be mentioned that an additional study could be made using observations in order to research if the findings of this study agree with the actions of the preschool teachers in relation to the limitation of Free Play. Additionally, a dimension could be added to this study by researching the differences between the previous and current national curriculum and how these documents differ in their views on Free Play. Also, a more in-depth analysis could be done on the values and norms represented in the curriculum in order to understand what the limitations of Free Play say about the Swedish society.

(32)

32

References

Literature

Alvehus, Johan (2013). Skriva uppsats med kvalitativ metod: en handbok. 1. uppl. Stockholm: Liber

Bryman, Alan (2016). Social research methods. Fifth edition Oxford: Oxford University Press

Foucault, Michel (1991). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Gutting, Gary (2005). Foucault: a very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Hillén, Sandra, Johansson, Barbro & Karlsson, MariAnne (2013). Att involvera barn i forskning

och utveckling. 1. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur

Kvale, Steinar (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur

May, Todd (2006). The philosophy of Foucault. Chesham: Acumen

Olofsson, Birgitta (1987). Lek för livet: en litteraturgenomgång av forskning om förskolebarns

lek. Stockholm: HLS (Högsk. för lärarutbildning i Stockholm)

Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid & Sheridan, Sonja (2001). Childrens Conceptions of participation

and influence in preschool. A perspective on pedagogical quality. Contemporary issues in Early

(33)

33

Taylor, Dianna. (2013). Michel Foucault [Elektronisk resurs] Key Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Vygotsky, Lev S.: Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child. I Bruner at al. (eds) 1976 (First published 1933)

(34)

34

Online references

Brodin, Jane and Renblad, Karin (2015) Early Childhood Educators' Perspectives of the Swedish

National Curriculum for Preschool and Quality Work, Early Childhood Education Journal, 43

(5), pp. 347-355.

Curriculum for the Preschool, Lpfö 18

https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2019/curriculum-for-the-preschool-lpfo-18?id=4049

Fenech, Marianne and Sumsion, Jennifer (2007) Early Childhood Teachers and Regulation:

Complicating Power Relations Using a Foucauldian Lens, Contemporary Issues in Early

Childhood, 8 (2), pp. 109-122.

Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. (2002).

Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet Tillgänglig på Internet:

http://www.gu.se/digitalAssets/1268/1268494_forskningsetiska_principer_2002.pdf

GDPR (2016)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN

Gore, Jennifer (1995). ´Diciplining bodies: on the continuity of power relations in pedagogy, in T.S. Popkewitz and M. Brennan (eds), Foucalt´s Challenge: Discourse, Knowledge and Power in Education (pp. 231-251.) New York: Teachers College Press.

Weldemariam Tigistu, Kassahun (2014) Cautionary Tales on Interrupting Children's Play: A

Study From Sweden, Childhood Education, 90 (4), pp. 265-271.

Sandseter, Ellen Beate Hansen and Sando, Ole Johan (2016) “We Don’t Allow Children to Climb

Trees”: How a Focus on Safety Affects Norwegian Children’s Play in Early-Childhood

(35)

35

Tsai, Chia-Yen (2015) ‘Am I Interfering? Preschool Teacher Participation in Children Play’, Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), pp. 1028–1033.

Wood, Elizabeth Ann (2014) Free choice and free play in early childhood education: troubling

the discourse, International Journal of Early Years Education, 22 (1), pp. 4-18.

Wyver, Shirley; Tranter, Paul; Naughton, Geraldine; Little, Helen; Sandseter, Ellen Beate Hansen; Bundy, Anita (2010) Ten Ways to Restrict Children's Freedom to Play: The Problem of

(36)

36

Attachment 1: Interview questions

Vad är fri lek för dig, kopplat till läroplanen?

Vilket syfte tycker du fri lek fyller i förskolan? Kan du beskriva en frileksituation du varit med om? Hur avbröts den?

Vilken sorts fri lek är inte okej? Vad? Var? och när? Hur är den fria lek begränsad?

Vilka anledningar tycker du det finns att avbryta den fria leken? Kan du ge ett exempel på ett tillfälle du brutit leken?

Berättade du till barnen varför?

Vilka strategier har du för att förebygga/avbryta/avsluta sådan lek? Finns de någon plats barnen inte får leka på?

Finns de någon tid barnen inte får leka? (Situation)

Extra:

Hur tror du andra pedagoger ser på detta?

Kan du berätta om en situation där du sett andra pedagoger avbryta leken? Vad var anledningen? Har det alltid varit samma lek som är förbjuden? Vad har ändrats?

Free from what? Limitations on Free Play

Degree Project with Specialization in Subject