‘Let’s play crocodiles’
Rules and game participation in a school playground
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.24054Keywords:
children, games, social interaction, rules, participation, school playground, peer group, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, inclusion and exclusionAbstract
School playgrounds are spaces where children play with peers in organised games that have pre-existing rules and procedures for game play, and made-up games that are improvised in the moment. The ways children go about making up games have not been well documented and may be overlooked in situ due to the minimal supervision of school playgrounds. This study investigates how children mobilise and constrain their own game participation using improvised rule proposals and directives. Turn-by-turn analysis of
the video recorded interactions of children (5–9 years) during lunch recess in an Australian school shows how children competently create and negotiate a game they called ‘crocodiles’. This ethnomethodological approach using conversation analysis highlights how children propose, challenge, or resist rules, to ensure or delay their ongoing involvement, or to influence the participation of others. Analyses identify how children negotiated their play and the actions of others as they recruited members and negotiated the play, mapped game play, made claims and further negotiations, and monitored the rule infringements of players. Identifying how children assemble their talk and actions as they create games informs educators of the interactional resources required for children’s participation in playground activities. Opportunities for practising these social skills within and away from adult supervision are particularly important as children interact in school playgrounds.
References
Bateman, A. (2011). Huts and heartache: the affordance of playground huts for legal debate in early childhood social organisation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3111–3121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.002
Bateman, A. & Butler, C. (2014). The lore and law of the playground. International Journal of Play. 3. 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2014.976030
Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological Science, 4(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00264.x
Burdelski, M. (2022). Socialization. In A. Church & A. Bateman (eds), Talking with Children: A Handbook of Interaction in Early Childhood Education (pp. 120–141). Cambridge University Press.
Burdelski, M. & Cekaite, A. (2022). Practices of peer inclusion: Recruitments to play in Swedish and Japanese preschools. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 6(1), 30–64. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.23286
Butler, C.W. (2008). Talk and Social Interaction in the Playground. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315241876
Butler, C. W. & Weatherall, A. (2006). ‘No, we’re not playing families’: Membership categorization in children’s play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_4
Butler, C. W., Duncombe, R., Mason, C. & Sandford, R. (2016). Recruitments, engagements, and partitions: managing participation in play. International Journal of Play, 5(1), 47–63, https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1147287
Cobb-Moore C., Danby, S. & Farrell, A. (2009). Young children as rule makers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1477–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.013
Corsaro, W. A. (1992). Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786944
Cromdal, J. (2004). Building bilingual oppositions: Code-switching in children’s disputes. Language in Society, 33, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504031021
Danby, S. & Baker, C. D. (2001). Escalating terror: Communicative strategies in a preschool classroom dispute. Early Education and Development, 12(3), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1203_4
Danby, S. & Farrell, A. (2004). Accounting for young children’s competence in educational research: New perspectives on research ethics. Australian Educational Researcher, 31(3), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03249527
Danby, S., Davidson, C., Theobald, M., Houen, S. & Thorpe, K. (2015). Playing with technology: Young children making sense of technology as part of their everyday social worlds. In D. Pike, S. Lynch & C. a’Beckett, (eds), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Play: From Birth to Beyond (pp. 231–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2643-0_14
Evaldsson, A.-C. (2007). Accounting for friendship: moral ordering and category membership in preadolescent girls’ relational talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 377–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701471377
Evaldsson, A.-C. & Karlsson, M. (2020). Protecting interactional spaces: Collusive alignments and territorial arrangements of two-against-one in girls’ play participation. Journal of Pragmatics 155, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.10.014
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
Goodwin, M. H. (2002). Exclusion in girls’ peer groups: Ethnographic analysis of language practices on the playground. Human development, 45(6), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1159/000066260
Goodwin, M.H. (2006). The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Blackwell Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/9780470773567
Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassel & E. T. Levy (eds), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill (pp. 195–212). John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C. (2018). Environmentally coupled gestures. In Co-operative Action (pp. 221–242). Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, M. & Redmond, G. (2010). Conceptualisation of Social and Emotional Wellbeing for Children and Young People, and Policy Implications. ARACY & AIHW.
Harris, J. et al. (2012). ‘What’s going on here?’ The pedagogy of a data analysis session. In A. Lee & S. Danby (eds), Reshaping Doctoral Education: International Approaches and Pedagogies (pp. 83–95). Routledge.
Heritage, J. (1978). Aspects of the flexibilities of natural language use: A reply to Phillips. Sociology, 12, 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200105
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press.
Houen, S. & Danby, S. (2021). ‘Two’s company, three’s a crowd’: Multi-modal engagement with objects to position a child on the periphery of peer membership in a preschool classroom. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 5(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.18175
Hughes, J. A. & Sharrock, W. W. (2016). The Philosophy of Social Research, 3rd edition. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840710
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 20–31). John Benjamins. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/34155291/Glossary_of_transcript_symbols_with_an_introduction
Kent, A. (2012). Responding to Directives: What can children do when a parent tells them what to do? In S. Danby & M. Theobald (eds), Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People (pp. 57–84). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1537-4661(2012)0000015007
Maynard, D. W. (1985). On the functions of social conflict among children. American Sociological Review, 50(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095410
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from https://iling.spb.ru/departements/anthropologic/materials/mondada_transcription.pdf
Niemi, K. (2014). ‘I will send badass viruses’. Peer threats and the interplay of pretend frames in a classroom dispute. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.012
Opie, I. & Opie, P. (1969). Children’s Games in Street and Playground. Oxford University Press.
Peräkylä, A. & Vehvilƒinen, S. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 727–750. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09579265030146003
Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversational analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Action: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (vol. 2, pp. 64–91). Sage.
Psathas, G. (1992). ‘The study of extended sequences: the case of the garden lesson’, In G. Watson & R.M. Seiler (eds), Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). Sage. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075799
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation (vols. 1–2). Blackwell Publishing.
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Sharrock, W. & Button, G. (1999). Do the right thing! Rule finitism, rule scepticism and rule following. Human Studies, 22(2–4), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005488417568
Sidnell, J. (2003). An ethnographic consideration of rule-following. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9(3), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00157
Sidnell, J. (2012). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 77–99). Riley.
Speier, M. (1973). How to Observe Face-to-Face Communication: A Sociological Introduction. Goodyear Publishing Company.
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
Theobald, M. (2013). Ideas as ‘possessitives’: Claims and counter claims in a playground dispute. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.009
Theobald, M. (2022). Friendships. In A. Church & A. Bateman (eds), Talking with Children: A Handbook of Interaction in Early Childhood Education (pp. 368–387). Cambridge University Press.
Theobald, M., Busch, G. & Laraghy, M. (2019). Children’s views and strategies for making friends in linguistically diverse English medium instruction settings. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (eds), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2019: Media of Instruction and Multilingual Settings (pp. 151–174). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14386-2_9
Theobald, M. & Danby, S. (2012). ‘A problem of versions’: Laying down the law in the school playground. In S. Danby & M. Theobald (eds), Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People (pp. 221–241). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1537-4661(2012)0000015013
Theobald, M. & Danby, S. (2017). Co-producing cultural knowledge: Children telling tales in the school playground. In A. Church & A. Bateman (eds), Children’s Knowledge-in-Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 111–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1703-2_7
Theobald, M. & Reynolds, E. (2015). In pursuit of some appreciation: Assessment and group membership in children’s second stories. Text and Talk, 35(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0006
Tholander, M. (2007). Working with rules: lived democracy in school. Ethnography and Education, 2(1), 109-126, https://doi.org/10.1080/17457820601159141
Wootton, A. (1986). Rules in action: Orderly features of actions that formulate rules. Children’s Worlds and Children’s Language (pp. 147–168). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110864212.147
