Portuguese and Brazilian children's play in school
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.20051Keywords:
play behavior, children, cross-cultural psychology, developmentAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to characterize and compare schoolchildren's play in two samples from different countries (Brazil and Portugal). METHODS: In each context 11 children participated in the study. All participating children had been attending the second grade of elementary school. Observations were carried out at school in a room, which had toys available. In order to register children's behaviors, it was used observations of the focal child and time sampling. RESULTS: Similar results were found in the two contexts regarding both the types of social interactions and children's choices of toys and plays. In terms of social interactions, children preferred to play in dyads. Boys showed a higher tendency to sex segregation in their activities than girls. The types of toys most used by children were the ones in the motor category, followed by the ones in the cognitive category. Educational toys, in turn, were the least used in children's play. Stick to the rules was the play activity most observed by researchers. However, when children were not sticking to the rules, the two samples showed different results. Brazilian children preferred to engage in games/rules, whereas Portuguese children preferred to engage in make-believe play. In both contexts boys preferred rough and tumble play more than girls. When Brazilian children were not playing, they preferred to engage in talking, whereas Portuguese children were more engaged in onlooker activity. CONCLUSION: Similarities between the two samples suggest common aspects in play behavior, while their differences refer to particularities of each social-cultural context.Downloads
References
Vygotsky LS. A formação social da mente: o desenvolvimento dos processos psicológicos superiores. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1998.
Bomtempo E. Brinquedo e educação: na esco-la e no lar. Psicologia Escolar e Educação. 1999;3(1): 61-69.
Benenson JF, Apostoleris NH, Parnass J. Age and sex differences in dyadic and group interaction. Developmental Psychology. 1997;33(3): 538-543.
Bichara ID. Um estudo etológico da brincadeira de faz-de-conta em crianças de 3-7 Anos[Tese de doutorado]. São Paulo: Instituto de Psicologia da USP; 1994.
Bjorklund DF, Pellegrini AD. Child development and Evolutionary Psychology. Child Development. 2000; 71(6): 1687–1708.
Brougère G. A criança e a cultura lúdica. Revista da Faculdade de Educação. 1998; 24(2):103-116.
Carvalho AM, Alves MMF, Gomes PLD. Brincadeira e educação: concepções e possibilidades. Psicologia em Estudo. 2005: 10(2): 217-226.
Friedmann A. O direito de brincar: a brinquedoteca. 4a ed. São Paulo: Abrinq; 1996.
Gosso Y. Pexe oxemoarai: brincadeiras infantis entre os índios Parakanã. [Tese de doutorado]. São Paulo: Instituto de Psicologia da USP; 2004.
Ruiz RO. El juego infantil y la construcción social del conocimiento. Sevilha: Ediciones Alfar;1992.
Cordazzo STD, Martins GDF, Macarini SM, Vieira ML. Perspectivas no estudo do brincar: um levantamento bibliográfico. Aletheia, 2007: 26:122-136.
Biscoli IÂ. Atividade lúdica uma análise da produção acadêmica brasileira no período de 1995a 2001. [Dissertação]. Florianópolis: Centro de Ciências da Educação da UFSC; 2005.
Cordazzo STD, Vieira ML. Caracterização de brincadeiras de crianças em idade escolar. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 2008; 21 (3): 365-373.
Pontes FAR, Magalhães CMC. A Transmissão da cultura da brincadeira: algumas possibilidades de investigação. Psicologia, Reflexão e Crítica. 2003; 16(1): 117-124.
Queiroz NLN, Maciel DA, Branco AU. Brincadeira e desenvolvimento infantil: um olhar socio-cultural construtivista. Paidéia. 2006; 16(34):169-179.
Elkonin DB. Psicologia do jogo. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1998.
Gosso Y, Salum e Morais M, Otta E. Pretend play of Brazilian children: a window into different cultural worlds. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2007; 38(5): 539-558.
Brougère G, Wajskop G. Brinquedo e cultura. 2a edição. São Paulo: Cortez; 1997.
Papalia D, Olds SW, Feldman RD. Desenvolvimento humano. Trad. Daniel Bueno. 8a ed. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 2006.
Martin CL, Fabes RA. The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer in-teractions. Developmental Psychology. 2001:37(3): 431-446.
Souza F, Rodrigues MMP. A segregação sexual na interação de crianças de 8 e 9 anos. Psicologia Reflexão e Crítica. 2002; 15(3): 489-496.
Silva LIC, Pontes FAR, Silva SDB, Magalhães CMC, Bichara ID. Diferenças de Gêneros nos grupos de brincadeira na rua: a hipótese de aproximação unilateral. Psicologia, Reflexão e Crítica. 2006; 19(1): 114-121.
Pellegrini AD, Smith PK. The development of play during childhood: forms and possible functions. Child psychology & Psychiatry review.1998; 3(2): 51-57.
Morais MLS, Otta E. Entre a serra e o mar. In: Carvalho AMA, Magalhães CMC, Pontes FAR, Bichara ID, organizadores. Brincadeira e cultura: viajando pelo Brasil que brinca. São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo; 2003. p.127-57.
Wanderlind F, Martins GDF, Hansen J, Macarini SM, Vieira ML. Diferenças de gênero no brincar de crianças pré-escolares e escolares na brinquedoteca. Paidéia. 2006; 16(34):263-273.
Smith PK. Play fighting and real fighting: perspectives on their relationships. In: Schimidtt A, Atzwanger K, Grammer K, Schäfer K, organizadores. New Aspects of Human Ethology. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. p. 47-64.
Dohme VA. Atividades lúdicas na educação: o caminho de tijolos amarelos do aprendizado.[Dissertação]. São Paulo: Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie; 2002.
Michelet A. Classificação de jogos e brinquedos: a classificação ICCP. In: Friedmann A, Aflalo C, Andrade CMRJ, Altaman RZ, organizadores. O direito de brincar: a brinquedoteca. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Edições Sociais, Abrinq; 1998.
Pellegrini AD, Smith PK. Physical activity play: the nature and function of a neglected as-pect of play. Child Development. 1998; 69:577-598.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL PUBLISHERS
Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:
- Follow this code, and encourage the editors they work with to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Edi- tors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf)
- Ensure the editors and journals they work with are aware of what their membership of COPE provides and en- tails
- Provide reasonable practical support to editors so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf_)
Publishers should:
- Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
- Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
- Protect intellectual property and copyright
- Foster editorial independence
Publishers should work with journal editors to:
- Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
– Editorial independence
– Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research
– Authorship
– Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards
– Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor
– Appeals and complaints
- Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
- Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
- Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
- Maintain the integrity of the academic record
- Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
- Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
- Publish content on a timely basis
