Early Child Development and Care

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/gecd20

Symbolic play: mother and child behaviours

Ayşe Belgin Aksoy, Hurşide Kübra Özkan Kunduracı & Merve Aksoy

To cite this article: Ayşe Belgin Aksoy, Hurşide Kübra Özkan Kunduracı & Merve Aksoy (2022)
Symbolic play: mother and child behaviours, Early Child Development and Care, 192:8,
1257-1269, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2020.1865337

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1865337

Published online: 11 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 524

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE
2022, VOL. 192, NO. 8, 1257–1269
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1865337

Symbolic play: mother and child behaviours

a b b
Ayşe Belgin Aksoy , Hurşide Kübra Özkan Kunduracı and Merve Aksoy
a
Department of Early Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey; bDepartment of
Child Development and Education, Institute of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of the study is to examine the symbolic play behaviours of the Received 13 November 2020
child and mother at home and to determine how the mother Accepted 8 December 2020
participated when playing with her child. The study included 19
KEYWORDS
mothers and their children with 24–36 months old children from Symbolic play; non-symbolic
Turkey. The symbolic play that the mother and child played together in play; maternal involvement;
their home environment was recorded in the video for 12 min. As a symbolic representation;
result of the research, it was determined that mothers involved in the mother–child interaction;
play ‘involved director’ most, and no mothers were involved in the home environment
category of ‘uninvolved’.

Introduction
Children explore the world through play. Exploratory behaviours in infancy start by mouthing the
objects and by manipulating them. Children gradually add non-symbolic activities to exploration
play-in which the purpose is nothing but to explore (Damast, 1994). Non-symbolic play emerges typi-
cally through the end of the first year. Children are concerned with the properties of objects to
understand their functions, they manipulate objects concretely and functionally, but they cannot
use them representatively (Tamis-LeMonda & Bomstein, 1994; Tamis-LeMonda, Uzgiris, & Bornstein,
2002). They primarily start playing to reveal the meaning of toys (for instance by pressing the buttons
on a toy telephone), then they put toys side by side inappropriately (e.g. putting a brush on a toy
bus) and then they play by using the toys properly (e.g. putting a lid on a toy teapot) during the
symbolic play (Damast, 1994). Parents’ role at this stage of play is similar to children’s roles in the
exploration play and is to introduce children to new objects and to show the ways of using them
(Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2002).
In symbolic play, on the other hand, children first use real objects and then representative objects.
Children first apply the schema to themselves in their symbolic play (mouthing the spoon, for
instance, to feed themselves). Then, while applying the schema to others, they make an application
directed to an animate person (e.g. pretending to feed their mother with a spoon). An application
directed to an inanimate object is made after the application directed to an animate person (such
as combing the baby doll’s hair) (Noll & Harding, 2003; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2002). They use real
objects or acts to represent different objects in addition to using them in similar ways in their
play. They can, for instance, use a block in the shape of a cylinder as a glass (Trawick-Smith,
2014). Substituting the real object with another object or developing an action in the absence of
the real object allows children’s symbolic thinking to develop (Duncan & Lockwood, 2008). Children’s
symbolic thought develops in their social context.

CONTACT Hurşide Kübra Özkan Kunduracı hursidekubra@gmail.com Child Development and Education, Gazi Univer-
sitesi, Ankara 06500, Turkey
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1258 A. B. AKSOY ET AL.

The individuals primarily available in children’s social life in earlier years are their parents (Else,
2009). Families have been the first playmate throughout the history, and children have preferred
their mother to their siblings or peers as a playmate (Bach, 2008, cited from Haigh and Miller).
Families teach how to play and thus contribute significantly to their children’s symbolic play. Accord-
ing to cultural-historical play view, children’s play develops when families change the meaning of
objects in play and assign them new meanings and when they create imaginary situations by
taking part in their children’s play and acting differently from the real (Fleer, 2013). Studies investi-
gating mothers’ involvement in the play found that the play takes a more complicated shape and
symbolic representations increase (Slade, 1987). It is pointed out that there were correlations
between mothers’ participation in the context of play and acting as a player and children’s develop-
ment and that the continuation of mother–child play as a routine is beneficial to both mothers and
children (Bach, 2008). Despite the availability of common thoughts that mother–child play activities
support children’s learning and development, there are no sufficient studies on specific behaviours
through which mothers influence children’s play (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2002).
This study is theoretically based on Bandura and Vygotsky’s approaches. Bandura stresses that
setting a model- which is also known as learning through imitation or observation-based learning –
is a strong source of development (Berk, 2013). Vygotsky considers the social effects on children’s
cognitive development as the zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development
means that children who have difficulty in fulfilling a task take on tasks in which they can learn
with the help and guidance of adults or other more experienced children (Berk, 2013; Trawick-
Smith, 2014). The person who knows a child the best and who guides him/her is the child’s
mother (Brock, Dodds, Jarvis, & Olusoga, 2009). Mothers’ use of scaffold during play increases the
complexity of the play and it also supports children’s development (Levenstein & O’Hara, 1993; Pier-
ucci, 2016). With those approaches, the study intends to determine the types of mothers’ involve-
ment in play due to the fact that children imitate the play behaviours since they observe their
mother’s play behaviours and due to the fact that mothers’ support changes in their involvement
in play. It can be said that children imitate their mother’s play behaviours during the play according
to Bandura’s approach and that mothers give the necessary support to their children during the play
and kept supporting their children according to Vygotsky. Children’s player behaviours and their
play regulation skills are inadequate especially in the earlier period. Families can set a model to
their children during symbolic play by using toys and objects, they can provide them with materials
and they can also find methods to improve play in this process by making good observations (Quinn
& Kidd, 2019; Sluss, 2005). Studies concerning mothers’ and children’s symbolic play behaviours and
mothers’ involvement in the play (Akgün & Yeşilyaprak, 2011; Damast, 1994; Damast, Tamis-
Lemonda, & Bornstein, 1996; Ebelings, 2011; Quinn & Kidd, 2019; Slade, 1987) attract attention to
the need for more research in the area.

The current study

This current study is thought to provide a resource to recognise mothers’ and children’s behaviours
of symbolic play, children’s personal traits and children’s interest and needs. The study can also con-
tribute to the literature in predicting the symbolic play behaviours of children of differing ages and
mothers’ levels of involvement in play. This study was planned in two ways in order to examine the
exploration – non-symbolic – symbolic play behaviours of the children and mothers with some play
materials and to determine how mothers are involved in play at home. Therefore, it seeks answers to
the following questions:

o How are children’s and mothers’

. exploration play behaviours?
. non-symbolic play behaviours?
. symbolic play behaviours?
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1259

o How are mothers involved in play?

Method
Participants
The participants consist of 19 mothers and their 24–36-month-old children (12 girls and 7 boys).
36.8% of the children (n = 7) are between 24 and 29 months old whereas 63.2% of them (n = 12)
are between 30 and 36 months old. Criterion sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods,
was used in forming the study group (Buyukozturk et al., 2013). The study group was reached by
means of the records in the family health centre under the roof of Ankara directorate of public
health in Turkey.

Instrument
Symbolic play observation form
The mothers’ and children’s behaviours of symbolic and non-symbolic play were coded according to
the schema developed by Damast et al. (1996). Behaviours of symbolic play were divided into cat-
egories of ‘exploration play’, non-symbolic play’ and ‘symbolic play’; and each category was
described at different levels in itself. The form consists of 24 items 2 of which are about exploration
play behaviour, 4 of which are about non-symbolic play behaviours and 14 of which are about sym-
bolic play behaviours (Table 1). Symbolic play behaviours displayed by children are marked by

Table 1. Symbolic play behaviours observation form.

Exploration play
1.Mouthing (eg. Suck blok)
2.Manipulation (Hold spoon and look at it)
Non Symbolic play
3.Unitary functional activity (Press the buttons of phone)
4.Inappropriate combinations (Get brush into toy bus)
5.Combinations based on perception (Put a lid on the teapot)
6. Combinations based on function (Put the hand in the puppet but not talk)
Symbolic play
7. Self-directed single act of pretense (Feed self with toy spoon)
8. Agentive animate-directed single act of pretense (Wash mom with toy sponge)
9. Agentive inanimate-directed single act of pretense (Comb baby’s hair)
10. Sequence of two or more different schemes in self-directed pretense (Pour and drink tea in toy cup)
11. Sequence of two or more different schemes in agentive animate-directed pretense (Put some food on the plate and give it to
his/her mom)
12. Sequence of two or more different schemes in agentive inanimate-directed pretense (Cover doll with blanket and pat to
sleep)
13. Single vicarious inanimate-directed pretense (Make the doll say ‘hi’ by waving her arm)
14. Single self-directed pretense act with an object substitution (Use the block as a sponge and washing her/his own face)
15. Single agentive animate-directed pretense with an object substitution (Put toy plate on mom’s head as hat.)
16. Single agentive inanimate-directed pretense with an object substitution (Use spoon as brush and brush doll’s hair.)
17. Sequence of two or more different schemes in vicarious inanimate-directed pretense (Make stuffed bear walk to toy car and
drive away)
18. Sequence of two or more different schemes in self-directed pretense with object substitution pretense (Use the block instead
of a sponge to apply soap and wash her/himself)
19. Sequence of two or more different schemes in agentive animate-directed pretense with object substitution (Feed mom with
block and wipe her mouth with toy sponge)
20. Sequence of two or more different schemes in agentive inanimate-directed pretense with object substitution (Wash doll with
block as sponge and dry with towel)
21. Single vicarious other-directed pretense with object substitution (Make toy person drive away in nesting cup as car)
22. Sequence of two or more different schemes in vicarious inanimate-directed pretense with object substitution (Put toy bib on
doll as coat and make her walk)
23. Self-removed pretense play with several inanimate others as actors (Make one doll kiss another doll)
24. Emotional pretense (Make the role of the baby hurt after having a needle)
1260 A. B. AKSOY ET AL.

observers on the form at the appropriate level. For example, behaviours of kissing a baby, hugging it,
feeding a dog and rocking a baby doll are included in ‘agentive inanimate-directed single act of
pretence’.

Mothers’ involvement in the play observation form

The form developed by Ebelings (2011) was used in this study to identify the types of mothers’ invol-
vement in the play. Thus, the types of mothers’ involvement in the play were categorized as unin-
volved, commentary, involved actor, involved physically and as involved director. The time when
a mother does not take on roles in the play, when she ignores her child or when she does a
different activity during her child’s symbolic play is coded as ‘uninvolved’. Mothers talk about the
activities their children do at that moment but they do not participate in the play in any other
way in ‘commentary involvement’. In ‘involved actor’, the instances when mothers try to role play
– regardless of whether or not they are successful – are included in this category. Mothers are
included in the category of ‘involved physically’ when they are concerned with the play actively
but when they do not role play. Mothers are coded as ‘involved director’ when they encourage sym-
bolic play by giving explicit instructions.

Procedures
The steps described below were taken in the application. First, permission was received to use the
symbolic play observation form (Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991) and the mothers’ involvement in
the play observation form from the authors who had developed them by sending them e-mails. The
observation forms were translated into Turkish by an expert in child development and education
who had advanced knowledge of the English language. After that, the forms were translated back
into English by an expert of English language. The back-translation was compared with the original
measurement tool and care was taken to have the same meanings in the Turkish text as the ones in
the original text. Having completed the translation process, the translations were compared and as a
result, no serious differences were found, and thus, it was concluded that there was linguistic equiv-
alence between the forms. Three experts in child development analysed the semantic, conceptual
and experiential equivalence of each item in the symbolic play observation form and in the
mothers’ involvement in the play observation form – which were translated into Turkish – to the
ones in the original forms and their compliance with cultural values by considering the character-
istics of the target group. The final shape was given to the observation forms in accordance with
expert opinion and a preliminary pilot scheme was carried out. The 10 min-video of mother and
child symbolic play was evaluated according to the final shape of the observation forms and was
analysed by the researchers. Consequently, it was concluded that there were no items that had
not been understood, and thus the final shape was given to the forms.
Second, a set of toys was prepared so that mothers and their children could use in their play
together. The set of toys included such toys as glasses, dishes, spoons, saucepans, teapots and
lids, sponge, toy food, two baby dolls (which could be made to walk by moving their arms), a
baby blanket, a feeding bottle, a comb, a toy dog, a toy car with a driver that could be removed,
a mobile phone, nested buckets and a hand puppet (see Figure 1). Sample toys mentioned in the
literature were used in preparing the set of toys, and special care was taken to make sure that
the toys allowed children to display play behaviours ranging between simple exploration to more
complicated symbolic play (Belsky & Most, 1981; Damast, 1994; McCune, 1995; O’Connell & Brether-
ton, 1984; Ungerer, Zelazo, Kearsley, & O’Leary, 1981).
Third, the mothers who were selected for the study group were called before going to their home,
and thus decisions were made for the time appropriate to them. The researchers visited the mothers
at home at the time decided. The toy sets were given to the children during the visits and they were
allowed to play with them for a while so that they could recognize the toys. Mothers were asked to
give information about their children in the process; their questions about the study – if there were
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1261

Figure 1. Toys for use in the application.

any – were answered. Prior to starting the video recording, the mothers were asked to sit on the
ground opposite their children and they were instructed to play with their children naturally as
they always do. The mothers and children were told that they could use any toy or all of the toys
but they were asked not to include the children’s own toys in the process of 12-min play (see
Figure 2). The mothers’ and their children’s 12-min dyadic play was video recorded. After the play
finished, the children were given small toys as a gift and they and their mothers were thanked for
their participation in the research.

Data analysis
The video records made during the mothers’ and their children’s symbolic play together were ana-
lysed by three experts. Time sampling method was used in analysing the play videos. In this context,
play observation form was used in recording the frequency of mothers’ and their children’s explora-
tion, non-symbolic and symbolic play behaviours. The form consisted of 24 levels representing the

Figure 2. Photos about the application process.

1262 A. B. AKSOY ET AL.

symbolic play behaviours identified by Tamis-LeMonda and Bornstein (1991) and they were divided
into 30-s time intervals. Having devoted the first two minutes of the 12-min play videos to children’s
recognition of the toys, the remaining 10 min were included in analysis. Thus, the frequency of
mothers’ and their children’s displaying exploration, non-symbolic and symbolic play behaviours
in the 10-min play videos were divided into 20 intervals of 30 s. The number of exploration, non-sym-
bolic and symbolic play behaviours displayed every 30 s for 20-time intervals was added separately
and the totals were found for the mothers and their children.
The mothers’ involvement in the play was identified by using the involvement in the play obser-
vation form containing five types of involvement called ‘uninvolved’, ‘commentary involvement’,
‘involved physically’, ‘involved actor’ and ‘involved director’ – which was used by Ebelings (2011).
The interactions in the 10-min mother and child play video were recorded in 20 intervals of 30 s
and thus calculations were made. Scores for the types of mothers’ involvement in the play ranged
between 0 and 20, and separate totals were found for each type of mother involvement in the
play. The mean, standard deviations and range were found for the figures calculated – which
were presented in the findings section.
Thirty percent of all the videos were coded by three independent coders for the reliability of the
data. The frequencies for agreement and disagreement between the experts were found with Miles
and Huberman (2014) formula of (reliability = agreement/(agreement + disagreement)). After this
evaluation, the agreement was reached on issues in which there was disagreement to do the
coding. Following the agreement, all of the play videos were coded by two experts. Level of
reliability between coders was found as 93% and reliability was considered to be satisfactory
(Stilson & Harding, 1997). Samples from observations for video analyses were included below the
tables to provide evidence for the reliability of the data.

Ethics
Primarily, the researchers applied to the Gazi University ethics committee to get permission for the
research. Having obtained the necessary permission, family health centres were visited and the study
group was formed through the records in the centre. The mothers who wished to take part in the
study were visited at home, they were informed of the study, they were given the approval form
and their written consent was taken. It was explained to them that the videos recorded during
the application would not be used for other purposes and nowhere else and that the process
would continue on the basis of volunteering. Code names were used so as to keep the mothers’
and their children’s identity confidential.

Findings
In this part, findings are given by tables and figures.
It is evident from Table 2 that the average scores for children’s exploration play behaviours are
(X = 0.05) for mouthing/sucking and (X = 0.53) for manipulation.
Sample for children’s exploration play behaviours are as in the following: Ipek took the baby doll in
the period between second 181 and 210 and displayed a manipulation behaviour by turning the legs of
the doll.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for children’s exploration play behaviours.

Exploration play behaviour Group N Min Max X ss
1. Mouthing Child 19 .00 1.00 0.05 0.2
2. Manipulation Child 19 .00 4.00 0.53 0.96
Note: Mothers’ play behaviours were not included in the table because their exploration play behaviours were not observed.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1263

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the mothers’ and their children’s non-symbolic play behaviours.
Non-symbolic play behaviours Group N Min Max X ss
1. Unitary functional activity Mother 19 .00 0.00 0.00 .00
Child 19 .00 4.00 0.58 .96
2. Inappropriate combinations Mother 19 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Child 19 .00 2.00 0.31 0.58
3. Combinations based on perception Mother 19 .00 3.00 0.42 0.96
Child 19 .00 6.00 1.68 1.83
4. Combinations based on function Mother 19 .00 3.00 0.31 0.82
Child 19 .00 12.00 3.74 3.43

An examination of the mothers’ average scores for non-symbolic play behaviours in Table 3
makes it clear that their average score is (X = 0.00) for unitary function activity, (X = 0.00) for inap-
propriate combinations, (X = 0.42) for combinations based on perception and (X = 0.31) for com-
binations based on function. The children’s average scores, on the other hand, are (X = 0.58) for
unitary function activity, (X = 0.31) for inappropriate combinations, (X = 1.68) for combinations
based on perception and (X = 3.74) for combinations based on function.
The chart in Figure 3 shows the changes in mothers’ and their children’s score averages for non-
symbolic play behaviours.
An examination of the chart demonstrates that the children’s non-symbolic play behaviours are
generally not similar to their mothers’. Accordingly, it can be said that mothers provide support to
increase their children’s symbolic play behaviours rather than non-symbolic play behaviours.
Samples for the mothers’ and their children’s non-symbolic play behaviours are as in the
following:
Demir displayed the behaviour of inappropriate combinations by putting a strawberry on the baby
doll in the period between second 271and 300, Rüzgar and his mother displayed the behaviour of com-
binations based on function by cutting the toy fruit into two with a knife in the period between second
121 and 150.
According to Table 4, the score averages for the mothers’ symbolic play behaviours were
(X = 0.84) for item 1, (X = 2.79) for item 3, (X = 0.68) for item 4, (X = 0.05) for item 5, (X = 0.37)
for item 6, (X = 0.58) for item 7, (X = 0.10) for item 10 and (X = 0.05) for item 17. The average

Figure 3. The changes in score averages for the mothers’ and their children’s non-symbolic play behaviours.
1264 A. B. AKSOY ET AL.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the mothers’ and their children’s symbolic play behaviours.
Symbolic play behaviours Group N Min Max X ss
1. Self-directed single act of pretense Mother 19 .00 4.00 0.84 1.17
Child 19 .00 5.00 1.05 1.58
2. Agentive animate-directed single act of pretense Mother 19 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Child 19 .00 1.00 0.10 0.31
3. Agentive inanimate-directed single act of pretense Mother 19 .00 6.00 2.79 1.81
Child 19 .00 10.00 6.58 2.19
4. Sequence of two or more different schemes in self-directed pretense Mother 19 .00 3.00 0.68 0.94
Child 19 .00 4.00 1.21 1.4
5. Sequence of two or more different schemes in agentive animate-directed Mother 19 .00 1.00 0.05 0.23
pretense Child 19 .00 1.00 0.05 0.23
6. Sequence of two or more different schemes in agentive inanimate-directed Mother 19 .00 2.00 0.37 0.68
pretense Child 19 .00 6.00 1.47 1.22
7. Single vicarious inanimate-directed pretense Mother 19 .00 3.00 0.58 0.84
Child 19 .00 4.00 0.74 1.1
10. Single agentive inanimate-directed pretense with an object substitution Mother 19 .00 1.00 0.10 0.31
Child 19 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11. Sequence of two or more different schemes in vicarious inanimate-directed Mother 19 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00
pretense Child 19 .00 1.00 0.05 0.23
17. Self-removed pretense play with several inanimate others as actors Mother 19 .00 1.00 0.05 0.23
Child 19 .00 1.00 0.16 0.37
Note: Items 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 of the symbolic play behaviours which were not displayed by the children and their
mothers were not included in the table.

scores for children’ symbolic play behaviours, on the other hand, were (X = 1.05) for item 1,
(X = 0.10) for item 2, (X = 6.58) for item 3, (X = 1.21) for item 4, (X = 0.05) for item 5, (X = 1.47)
for item 6, (X = 0.74) for item 7, (X = 0.05) for item 11 and (X = 0.16) for item 17.
The chart in Figure 4 shows the changes in the mothers’ and their children’s score averages for
symbolic play behaviours.
An examination of the chart above makes it clear that the mothers’ and their children’s scores for
symbolic play behaviours are very similar. Accordingly, it may be said that the frequency of children’s
displaying symbolic play behaviours increases when their mothers support their symbolic play
behaviours.

Figure 4. The changes in the mothers’ and their children’s symbolic play behaviour score averages.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1265

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the types of maternal involvement in play.

Types N Min Max X Ss
Uninvolved 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Commentary 19 0.00 10.00 2.84 3.04
Involved actor 19 1.00 9.00 4.26 2.28
Involved physically 19 0.00 6.00 3.00 1.79
Involved director 19 1.00 14.00 8.31 4.61

Sample for the mothers’ and their children’s symbolic play behaviours are as in the following: Elif
displayed the behaviour of single vicarious inanimate-directed pretence by making the toy man walk in
the period between second 36 and 390. Her mother fed the baby doll with a feeding bottle in the period
between second 241 and 270 and said ‘she is full now’, and thus displayed the behaviour of sequence of
two or more different schemes in inanimate-directed pretence.
An examination of Table 5 indicates that the score averages for the types of maternal involvement
in the play are (X = 8.31) for involved director, (X = 4.26) for involved actor, (X = 3.00) for involved
physically and (X = 2.84) for commentary involvement. None of the mothers was marked as unin-
volved (X = 0.00).
The chart in Figure 5 shows the percentages for the types of maternal involvement in play.
Accordingly, the mothers had involvement as directors the most frequently (45%) which was fol-
lowed by involvement as actors (23%), involvement physically (16%) and commentary involvement
(16%). No mothers displayed the behaviour of uninvolved.
Observation sample for mothers with involvement as directors are as in the following: Cansu’s
mother puts the baby doll her trousers by saying ‘it is shameful’ after toileting her in the period
between second 61 and 120; and then she took part in the play as a director by saying ‘come on …
be her mother and feed her’.
Observation sample for mothers with involvement as actor are as in the following: Yagız’s mother
pretended to eating with her child-Yagız in the period between second 121 and 210. They peeled the
onions together, put them into the saucepan and cooked the meal by stirring it. After that, they
poured tea to the cups and drank it together. She made the sound of drinking tea and said, ‘it burnt
my mouth’ and she got involved in the play as an actor.

Figure 5. The chart concerning maternal involvement in play.

1266 A. B. AKSOY ET AL.

Observation sample for mothers with physical involvement in the play are as in the following:
Erva’s mother pointed to the potty and said, ‘what is that?’ in the period between second 91 and 120,
and she got involved in the play physically by pointing to the puppet and saying ‘I wonder what this
is’ in the period between second 271 and 300.
Observation sample for mothers with commentary involvement in the play are as in the following:
Yagız’s mother made a comment on the activity that Yagız was doing by asking ‘have you had an acci-
dent?’ while he was pretending to drive a car in the period between second 481 and 510.

Discussion
This study found that mothers did not display exploration play behaviours while children displayed
such exploration play behaviours as mouthing and holding in their hand. The children were found to
take various toys and examine them and then to leave them back without playing with them. It is
thought that exploration play behaviours are a step for children to learn the physical and social
world (Benson & Haith, 2009; Muentener, Herrig, & Schulz, 2018; Sonday & Gretschel, 2016). Explora-
tion behaviours start in infancy and then infants gradually add non-symbolic activities into their
exploration play (Damast, 1994). Exploration behaviours can be observed in individuals of all ages
who are in an environment where they have never been before, who try a dish which they have
never tasted before and who meet somebody who they have never met before. The 26–36-
month-old children who were included in the study group can be thought to display exploration
play behaviours due to facing new toys and their desire to recognize them and to satisfy their
curiosity.
Another important finding of the present study is that the mothers displayed combinations based
on perception and combinations based on function very rarely, they were not involved in other non-
symbolic play behaviours; but their children displayed non-symbolic play behaviours of combi-
nations based on perception and combinations based on function more often. In this context, it
can be said that the mothers set models to their children and encouraged them so that they
could extend their imitation activities and could go beyond that level. The result can be explained
with the view stated in Bandura’s social learning approach that setting a model is a strong source of
learning. According to Vygotsky, parents help children to acquire the knowledge necessary to
describe the roles in play through modelling and teaching (Noll & Harding, 2003; Petrović-Sočo,
2014). On the other hand, Damast (1994) found that mothers encouraged their children to display
symbolic play behaviours instead of getting involved in non-symbolic play behaviours when their
children displayed non-symbolic play behaviours. Noll and Harding (2003), in a study which analysed
12–47-month-old children’s and their mothers’ symbolic play behaviours, found that children played
symbolic play more often and non-symbolic play less often in parallel to the rise in their age.
One of the most important findings of the study is that there are interactions between the
mothers’ and their children’s symbolic play behaviours. It is also reported in the literature that
there are strong correlations between mothers’ taking part in symbolic play and toddlers’ symbolic
play behaviours. Damast (1994) stated that mothers’ and their children’s symbolic play activities
were actualised synchronically. According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), children learn
by taking others’ behaviours as a model and by imitating them. The new behaviours that mothers
include in the play during symbolic play are also taken as a model by children and are learnt in
this way and they are reflected into the play. Giovanelli et al. (2020) reached conclusions demonstrat-
ing that the scaffold built by mothers during play and their support to their children were important
in symbolic representations in earlier years of life. Orr and Geva (2015) state that children display
greater number of symbolic behaviours when their mothers respond by saying ‘wow, very delicious’
by smiling to their children’s cooking behaviour during their play together. Thus, it could be said in
this context that mothers’ setting a model to their children by taking part in symbolic plays in
addition to providing more materials and more space supports children’s development of symbolic
play.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1267

A further finding of this study is that the mothers mostly had involvement in the play as directors
and that there were no mothers who were marked in the category of ‘uninvolved’. Thus, it can be
stated that the mothers directed their children to display ‘more competent’ behaviours and that
the situation stemmed from children’s period of development. It is stated in the literature that
mothers’ involvement in play in various forms such as being commenters and actors and setting
a model for symbolic play behaviours is influential in the development of toddlers’ symbolic play
behaviours (Nielsen & Christie, 2008; Striano, Tomasello, & Rochat, 2001). Mothers’ involvement in
the play mostly as directors might have been associated with the socio-cultural properties of the
play. Parents wish to raise their children as the competent members of cultural groups in every
culture, and therefore, they direct their children’s behaviours so that they can internalise cultural
norms. Parents generally consider play as an instrument through which they teach their children
the patterns of behaviour which are consistent with the culture (Hammer & Weiss, 1999; Le et al.,
2008; Lin, Xie, & Li, 2019). In this context, it might be argued that reason for mothers’ involvement
in symbolic play as directors was their desire to give cultural messages to their children through the
themes they presented to their children, the amount of autonomy they allowed and through the
roles they took on during the play.

Conclusion
This study found that both mothers and their children displayed symbolic play behaviours more fre-
quently than non-symbolic and exploration play behaviours. Accordingly, it can be said that the sym-
bolic play behaviours of the toddlers and their mothers – who constituted the study group – were in
parallel and synchronic. This result can be explained – consistently with Vygotsky’s model of scaffold-
ing – with the fact that the mothers provided support and guided their children to increase their
symbolic play behaviours. It can also be said according to Bandura’s approach of learning
through observation that children imitated their mothers’ play behaviours and that they regulated
and sustained their play accordingly. It is reported in the literature that mothers who actively take
part in symbolic play activities with their children and thus extend their symbolic play behaviours
enable them to develop more complicated symbolic play behaviours in later periods of develop-
ment. Mothers who cannot appeal to their children’s behaviours of symbolic play in accordance
with their development or those who fall behind their capacities of symbolic play can disrupt
their children’s symbolic play development (Ebelings, 2011; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1994).
Thus, the mothers who know the characteristics of symbolic play which are dependent on their chil-
dren’s development and who support symbolic play by using the scaffold play facilitator roles in the
development of their children.

Limitations and future directions

This study has certain limitations despite theoretical and practical contributions to the literature-
which could be considered in future studies. The fact that this study was conducted with a small
sample was a limitation. In-depth studies using larger samples and different methods are needed
in the literature to analyse more comprehensively parents’ involvement in symbolic play activities
at home. Finally, studies which include fathers could also be planned and thus further analyses
could be done on how fathers and mothers get involved in play activities and on how experiences
differ because this current study was conducted with the inclusion of mothers only.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
1268 A. B. AKSOY ET AL.

Notes on contributors
Ayşe Belgin Aksoy graduated from Hacettepe University, Depatment of Child Development and Education in 1983. She
received her “master” degree from Hacettepe University, Child Development and Education Program in 1986 and “PhD”
in Child Health and Education in 1992. In 2006, she became an associate professor and in 2016 she became a professor
in the Department of Child Development and Education at Gazi University. She is currently working in Department of
Preschool Education at Gazi University in Turkey. She has works in the fields of Family Education, Child and Adolescent
Development, and Children‘s Play Development.
Hurşide Kübra Özkan Kunduracı after graduating from Department of Preschool Teaching at Anadulu University in
2008, she worked as a teacher in schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education between 2008-2014. She com-
pleted her master degree at Gazi University Child Development and Education Program in 2013-2015. In 2015, she
started PhD in the Child Development and Education program at Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences.
She continues to work as a research assistant in the same department. She has works in the fields of Family Education,
Drama Education, and Children’s Play Development.
Merve Aksoy in 2013, she graduated from Middle East Technical University, Department of Early Childhood Education
with a high degree. She worked as a Preschool Teacher between 2013 and 2015. She has been working as a Research
Assistant at Gazi University, Department of Child Development and Education since 2016. At the same time, she gradu-
ated from Gazi University, Child Development and Education Master Program and continues her PhD.

ORCID
Ayşe Belgin Aksoy http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0918-2560
Hurşide Kübra Özkan Kunduracı http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1682-8908
Merve Aksoy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0143-2935

References
Akgün, E., & Yeşilyaprak, B. (2011). The qualitative dimension of mother-child play interaction: An evaluation of mothers’
verbal expressions. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 11–20.
Bach, L. M. (2008). Flow and effective scaffolding: a study of mother child play (PhD dissertation). Illinois State University.
Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/304606545/E5D974F252A745EEPQ/1?accountid=
11054
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4.
Belsky, J., & Most, R. K. (1981). From exploration to play: A cross-sectional study of infant free play behavior..
Developmental Psychology, 17, 630–639. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.5.630.
Benson, J., & Haith, M. (2009). Social and emotional development in ınfancy and early childhood. Boston: Austrian Elsevier
Inc.
Berk, L. (2013). Bebekler ve çocuklar [Babies and children]. (N. Işıkoğlu, Translated and edited). Ankara: Nobel.
Brock, A., Dodds, S., Jarvis, P., & Olusoga, Y. (2009). We don’t play like that here: Social, cultural and gender perspectives
on play. In Perspectives on play: Learning for life (1st ed., pp. 40–64). London: Routledge.
Buyukozturk, S., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., Demirel, F., Kılıc, E. (2013). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemleri. Ankara: Pegem
Akademi.
Damast, A. M. (1994). Sequences in mother-toddler play interactions: The relationship between maternal beliefs about play
and maternal dyadic play behaviors (PhD dissertation). New York University. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.
com/docview/304130488?accountid=11054
Damast, M. A., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1996). Mother-child play: Sequential interactions and the
relation between maternal beliefs and behaviors. Child Development, 67(4), 1752–1766.
Duncan, J., & Lockwood, M. (2008). Learning through play: A work-based approach for the early years professional.
New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ebelings, E. M. (2011). Symbolic play in low-income African American mother-toddler dyads: Maternal behaviors and child
outcomes (Master’s dissertation). University of Missouri. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
304130488?accountid
Else, P. (2009). The value of play. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Fleer, M. (2013). Play in the early years. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Giovanelli, C., Di Dio, C., Lombardi, E., Tagini, A., Meins, E., Marchetti, A., & Carli, L. (2020). Exploring the relation between
maternal mind-mindedness and children’s symbolic play: A longitudinal study from 6 to 18 months. Infancy, 25(1),
67. doi:10.1111/infa.12317.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1269

Hammer, C. S., & Weiss, A. L. (1999). Guiding language development: How African American mothers and their ınfants
structure play ınteractions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(5), 1219–1233. doi:10.1044/
jslhr.4205.1219.
Le, N. H., Ceballo, R., Chao, R., Hill, N. E., Murry, V. M., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (2008). Excavating culture: Disentangling
ethnic differences from contextual influences in parenting. Applied Developmental Science, 12(4), 163–175.
doi:10.1080/10888690802387880.
Levenstein, P., & O’Hara, J. (1993). The necessary lightness of mother-child play. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play:
Descriptions and implications (pp. 221–237). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lin, X., Xie, S., & Li, H. (2019). Chinese mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in toddler play activity: Type variations and
gender differences. Early Child Development and Care, 189(2), 179–190. doi:10.1080/03004430.2018.1542529.
McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational play in the transition to language. Developmental Psychology,
31(2), 198. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.198.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Nitel veri analizi [Qualitative Data Analysis]. (S. Akbaba Altun & A. Ersoy, Translated
and edited). Ankara: Pegem.
Muentener, P., Herrig, E., & Schulz, L. (2018). The efficiency of ınfants’ exploratory play is related to longer-term cognitive
development. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00635.
Nielsen, M., & Christie, T. (2008). Adult modelling facilitates young children’s generation of novel pretend acts. Infant and
Child Development, 17, 151–162. doi:10.1002/icd.538.
Noll, L. M., & Harding, C. G. (2003). The relationship of mother-child interaction and the child’s development of symbolic
play. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(6), 557–570. doi:10.1002/imhj.10071.
O’Connell, B., & Bretherton, I. (1984). Toddler’s play, alone and with mother: The role of maternal guidance. In I.
Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play: The development of social understanding (pp. 337–368). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Orr, E., & Geva, R. (2015). Symbolic play and language development. Infant Behavior and Development, 38, 147–161.
doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2015.01.002.
Petrović-Sočo, B. (2014). Symbolic play of children at an early age. Croatian Journal of Education, 16(1), 235–251.
Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/117860
Pierucci, J. M. (2016). Mothers’ scaffolding techniques used during play in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder.
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28(2), 217–235. doi:10.1007/s10882-015-9459-8.
Quinn, S., & Kidd, E. (2019). Symbolic play promotes non-verbal communicative exchange in infant-caregiver dyads.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 33–50. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12251.
Slade, A. (1987). A longitudinal study of maternal involvement and symbolic play during the toddler period. Child
Development, 367–375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01384.x.
Sluss, D. J. (2005). Supporting play: Birth through age eight. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Sonday, A., & Gretschel, P. (2016). Empowered to play: A case study describing the impact of powered mobility on the
exploratory play of disabled children. Occupational Therapy International, 23(1), 11–18. doi:10.1002/oti.1395.
Stilson, S. R., & Harding, C. G. (1997). Early social context as it relates to symbolic play: A longitudinal ınvestigation.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(4), 682–693.
Striano, T., Tomasello, M., & Rochat, P. (2001). Social and object support for early symbolic play. Developmental Science, 4
(4), 442–455. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00186.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1991). Individual variation, correspondence, stability and change in mother
and toddler play. Infant Behavior and Development, 14, 143–162. doi:10.1016/0163-6383(91)90002-A.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1994). Specificity in mother-toddler language-play relations across the second
year. Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 283–292. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.283.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Uzgiris, I. C., & Bornstein, M. H. (2002). Play in parent-child interactions. In I. Bretherton, & M. H.
Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 5: Practical issues in parenting (pp. 221–241). New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Trawick-Smith, J. (2014). Erken Çocukluk döneminde Gelişim [Development in Early Childhood]. (B. Akman, Translated
and edited). Ankara: Nobel.
Ungerer, J. A., Zelazo, P. R., Kearsley, R. B., & O’Leary, K. (1981). Developmental changes in the representation of objects
in symbolic play from 18 to 34 months of age. Child Development, 55, 1448–1455. doi:10.2307/1129229.