Playing at the Literate Zone: A Challenge for Argentinian Schools.

We reach the new millennium facing a situation that is hard to accept: The vast number of the world's children are illiterate. According to a report from UNICEF (1999), 130 million children around the world cannot read or write. Seventy-three million of these unfortunate children are girls who do not even attend school (UNICEF, 1999).

Latin America, in general, and the author's country, Argentina, in particular, are part of this reality. It is estimated that 3,800,000 children attended school in Latin America in 1980, but that 50 percent of the children abandon schooling after the first year of attendance (Tedesco, Braslavsky, & Carciofi, 1987, p. 57). In some South American countries (for example, Brazil and Paraguay), many parents do not appreciate school attendance. In addition, gender inequities, a lack of health provisions and literacy materials, and social policies all contribute to low levels of literacy among Latin American children (Ferreiro, 1992; Greaney, 1996; Taylor, 1993; Torres, 1999; UNESCO, 1992; World Bank, 1995). Traditional approaches to literacy education do not appear to be working well in Latin America. This article supports improving the situation by connecting literacy with children's play.

LITERACY IN ARGENTINA: TRADITIONS AND NEW TRENDS

Traditions

According to Braslavsky's (1997) critical review of literacy and education in Argentina, public education began during the first decades of the 19th century, after Argentina's wars and revolutions for independence from Spain (which was attained in 1816). The revolutionary leaders, Mariano Moreno and Cornelio Saavedra, were inspired by ideas from the French Revolution about equality and upward mobility for the people. Thus, when Buenos Aires became the Capital Centre of the Virreynato, the new government established organized settings for teaching and learning. These early schools relied on Rousseau's and Voltaire's works on literacy.

Social and economical changes accelerated after the Independence period (1816-1820). Between 1862 to 1880, however, the country needed an organization to promote socialization, acquisition of basic skills, and practical activities. Formal schooling emerged, and literacy instruction focused on memorizing letters and words.

During the last decades of the 19th century (1870-1900), national policies and laws allowed immigrants (e.g., French, Italians, Spaniards, and Russians) to become permanent residents. People from these different cultural or ethnical backgrounds needed to learn the national language to become "real citizens." The government created different propaganda mottos to encourage such language acquisition: "educar al soberano" (educating citizens) or "civilizacion or barbarie" (citizenship or barbarism). Literacy issues became an important campaign of President Domingo F. Sarmiento (1868-1874).

Sarmiento's successors (Roca, Avellaneda) founded the first schools to train prospective teachers, known as "Escuelas Normales" (normal schools). The first Escuelas Normales were established in Buenos Aires and other provinces, such as Parana and Rosario.

In 1884, the Congress passed a law, No. 1420, that guaranteed a free public education for children from 6 to 14 years old, with an emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic. Initially, the law was only applied in the Buenos Aires area; after 1905, it was mandatory in Argentina's other 20 provinces.

The main changes to education in Argentina during the 20th century occurred after the 1950s, during the reign of Juan Peron. The rates of public school enrollment doubled as scholars and teachers argued about how to promote reading in meaningful ways (Braslavsky, 1985). This era became a time of experimentation with different literacy methodologies.

Unfortunately, "natural methods" that focused on meaning were undermined and supplanted by "empirical methods" that emphasized memorization, repetition, and functional skills. More teachers began using the analytic-synthetic method (reading and writing sequences of vowels, syllables, and words). By the end of the 1950s, however, a teacher-researcher group began advocating the Language Experience Approach (LEA), in which children read texts composed of their own oral language. The Cossettini sisters and Luis Iglesias demonstrated the advantage of the LEA and literacy play in language arts programs (Cossettini, 1961; Iglesias, 1975).

After 1960, criticism arose that teachers were extremely directive, and that formal education oppressed children from poor families. Paulo Freire's open approach (1975), which emphasized participation and questioning reality, gained favor by the mid-1970s.

Right-wing groups linked to the Ministry of Education responded by hiding any evidence of deficiencies in public education. The few studies of literacy education that were made public during the dictatorship regime (1976-1983) suggested that education was supported by these goals: to discipline society; and to order life, behaviors, hierachies, and authorities (Tedesco, Braslavsky, & Carciofi, 1987). Freire's pedagogy of freedom was outlawed, and many teachers and students were expelled from schools and universities. Private schools were founded and became more effective than the public schools in teaching literacy (Puiggros, 1994).

Following the authoritarian criterion to discipline society, in 1981 the Secretary of Education proposed a literacy program that combined Piagetian orientations about cognitive development with teaching basic skills. The program introduced the pedagogical goal of allowing children "to take the time for learning to operate with different sources and materials.... Thus, children will have positive effects on future learning...." (Secretaria de Educacion, 1981, pp. 32-33). Under this program, children in their first year of schooling were allowed to learn only 13 letters (a, e, i, o, u, m, p, d, t, s, l, n, y). At the end of 1st grade, children were expected to write and read these 13 letters properly, as well as words using these letters, and then short sentences using the words. Authoritarianism in the education administration, lack of freedom to educate, and extreme control in teachers' methodology caused "repression of the desire to be literate." Therefore, the highest rates of school failure were at the end of the dictatorship's period: Eighty percent of children abandoned schooling after the first year of attendance (Tedesco et al., 1987, p. 61).

New Trends

New trends were spread from Argentina to neighboring countries in the era of democracy that began in 1983 with the election of Raul Alfonsin. These trends were linked to two well-known approaches: the natural-Piagetian approach, led by Emilia Ferreiro and colleagues (Kaufman, 1988; Teberosky, 1990; Tolchinsky, 1993), and the pedagogical approach, led by Berta Braslavsky (Garcia, 1993). These scholars, coming from different fields of study, began to raise questions about the ways children come to know written language.

Ferreiro and collaborators asked questions about the understandings about reading and writing that children develop over time. They were interested in how children compose written language and how children see the object known as writing. These early Piagetian literacy studies were conducted in Spanish in Argentina and Mexico City. Then, they were extended to other languages, such as French, Hebrew, Portuguese, Italian, and English (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1986; Goodman, 1990).

Using Piagetian clinical methodologies, researchers gained an understanding of how children acquire literacy skills. This "psychogenesis of written language" distinguishes three main developmentally ordered levels: 1) distinction between drawing and writing--iconic and non-iconic modes of representation; 2) control of qualitative and quantitative variations to regulate the construction of written representation--minimum quantity and internal quality; and 3) phonetization of written representation--children choose letters or words to represent writing (for more details, see Ferreiro, 1988). The primary effect of these studies was to make teachers aware of how children construct their knowledge about written language.

From the mid '80s to the mid '90s, controversies arose about how to implement this knowledge about literacy development. Although teachers began to understand that children may be active and creative in the domain of literacy, some teachers organized classroom activities following the criteria of the psychological development of the written system (Kaufman, 1988). Conferences and conventions were held to determine the best activities for promoting literacy, especially for children who only had access to print in public schools.

In contrast with the Piagetian perspective, Braslavsky's approach is based on psycholinguistics and on Vygotskian studies (1978, 1982-1984) about language and written language acquisition. This orientation is a holistic model that places literacy within the context of schooling and relates it to other social factors as well (Braslavsky, 1990). Whereas Ferreiro is interested in how children view literacy as an object of knowledge, Braslavksy is concerned with how children view literacy in a social sense. This approach emphasizes "not only cognitive aspects but also the sociocultural effects and the impact of teaching on children's learning. Families, schools, and communities may encompass literacy acquisition" (Braslavsky, 1992, p. 19). The Braslavsky orientation promotes reading and writing at school through daily activities. Through scaffolding, teachers may help children interact with print as a cultural activity and create texts using different visual, phonological, or perceptive sources (for more information, see Braslavsky, 1992).

Despite their differences, Braslavsky and Ferreiro agree that literacy is a meaningful, social activity, and both orientations are still influential in Latin America and Argentina. In fact, they have been fused together into an approach known as "emergent literacy" (Teale & Sulzby, 1986).

The whole regional education system functions like a pendulum. There is either an overemphasis on children's natural development, or children's learning is undermined by overdirection from adults.

In the end, education seems unaltered. The Piagetian and Braslavsky orientations, ultimately, could not bring about real changes in children's literacy learning or help increase the number of children who succeed academically. There are still about as many children being expelled from school as in past decades. At the same time, scholars still insist on searching for a magic formula that may provide the solution to "defeat" illiteracy. Moreover, researchers continue to disregard other activities, such as play, as viable ways to promote literacy.

Linking Literacy and Play

Since 1990, political and educational changes in Argentina have provided the proper climate for focusing on different ways to promote literacy. These changes opened doors to researchers and practitioners, allowing them to implement new methodologies--such as linking literacy and play--that would not have been possible during dictatorship rule.

Literacy-related resources offered within sociodramatic play provide ideal opportunities for developing emergent literacy abilities (Enz & Christie, 1997; Neuman & Roskos, 1992, 1993; Pellegrini & Galda, 1993). For example, a restaurant play center can be stocked with pencils, notepads, menus, wall signs, employee name tags, and other sorts of literacy items that one typically encounters in a restaurant. Recent studies in the United States and England suggest that linking play experiences with literacy promotes young children's reading and writing development (Christie, 1991; Dalton & Christie, 1998, 1999; Hall & Robinson, 1995; Stone & Christie, 1996).

Many research studies from the mid '80s to the mid '90s promoted literacy-enriched play settings for young children. There was no evidence, however, about the effectiveness of the literacy-enriched play center strategy with older, primary-grade children. This gap in research may have to do with the overall culture of schooling, which often is viewed as a place to acquire specific competencies needed to function in adult life. Thus, play is not highly regarded in primary schools (Dalton, 1996; Hall, 1998). Although play is a "natural" phenomenon in child care centers and preschool education programs, it is not advocated for elementary school (Municipalidad Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 1989). Socially and historically, the play ethos is not considered a part of school, which is a more controlled setting driven by assessment. Toys and play are culturally acceptable in non-school settings, but not in school settings.

Implementing Literacy Play at Schools

In order to explore the impact of play on early literacy development, the author undertook a research project that lasted more than three years (1993-1996) in three public primary schools. The focus of this study shifted from the physical environment of literacy-enriched play settings to the social variables (i.e., the teachers' actions to design enriched-theme play centers in the classrooms).

The project's goal was to intervene in schools that belonged to the Buenos Aires Secretary of Education (composed of 21 school districts and 550 primary schools), focusing on one district that had suffered significant problems. Data revealed teachers in this district were still implementing a program from 1981, which promoted teaching only 13 letters in 1st grade despite inservice training on more progressive methods of literacy instruction.

Before the intervention, one member of the Board of Directors of the Secretary rejected the project, asserting, "Schools are not laboratories or settings to explore literacy." Thus, the author met with some principals, who had taken a literacy course from him, supported by the Universidad de Buenos Aires. These principals provided the information, schools, and staff members to implement the research. Three 1st-grade teachers were involved during the first part of the project (1993-1996), and a total of eight teachers worked until the end of the project (1998). A total of 350 children (1st- and 2nd-graders) were included.

The schools were 3 miles away from downtown Buenos Aires in La Matanza county, where immigrant families (children from Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and the northwest of Argentina) lived (often in low-income settings). The three schools shared the same problem--many children had failed 1st grade two or even three times. Most of these children could not read or write conventionally. They produced marks or isolated letters, but could not produce sentences or short texts. No reports or regional assessments were available to help explain why these children had failed.

As part of the project, the author trained teachers in current literacy trends, specifically in the socioconstructivistic approach (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1931/1966), and informed them about the studies linking literacy and play. The sessions included training or discussions regarding what the teachers recalled about their own literacy development. Questions for discussing play included: What did you play when you were 5 years old? What were your favorite toys when you were 6 years old? Then, the literacy-enriched play setting strategy was introduced.

The three teachers decided to design a literacy-enriched taxi center, because it represents a setting that youngsters typically encounter in their communities. The difference is that the play center, a micro-scale reproduction, is enriched with functional literacy items, tools, and machinery (pharmacy, bookstore, supermarket, and TV studio centers were added to the project later).

Teachers and children jointly created the literacy-enriched theme centers following a process of microtasks (i.e., the cooperative design of play centers). This process included the following actions: naming the center, adding props and machinery, considering how much time to devote to using the center, and establishing how to use the center during play (Dalton, 1995, 1997). These microtasks varied, depending upon the circumstances and each teacher's way of getting things done. For instance, sometimes they designed two centers at the same time (i.e., parallel design), while other times they spent days discussing with the children ways to create a specific literacy-enriched center (i.e., step-by-step design). The teachers' main role was to be stage managers (Jones & Reynolds, 1992), providing support, costumes, and props to arrange the play's framework.

Expanding the Project

Other teachers (1st to 3rd grade) from the same school became interested in the project. As a result, a new year-long project involving eight teachers from the same school was conducted. This project focused on the teachers' interventions, and on the effects of literacy-enriched play environments on at-risk children's literacy development (Dalton, 1998).

This new group chose a supermarket design and they selected 12 at-risk children (4 girls and 8 boys, average age 7 years, 5 months) as the focus subjects. The teachers had three hours of training each week, during which time they participated in different play experiences and games. Then, they discussed the play features and the reasons why such play experiences/ games were allowed or forbidden at their schools. The teachers made lists of functional literacy props for the enriched-theme centers, and then discussed ways to use these props, as well as ways to intervene in the literacy play, as necessary.

Next, the teachers set up literacy-enriched play settings in their classrooms and spent a week videotaping the children's play and the teachers' interventions. Training was provided to help the teachers analyze their interventions and the subsequent effects on how the children acquired reading and writing skills.

Analysis of the videotapes revealed that the teachers developed the same process of microtasks to design the centers. The analysis also offered insights about the ways the teachers articulated their roles in play. Whereas Enz and Christie's study (1997) demonstrated that teachers' interventions varied according to experience, training, and interaction with children, this project showed that certain teachers achieved one quality--flexibility. Flexibility provided teachers with opportunities to "switch" between being supportive and being directive during literacy play. Flexibility was the only quality related to personal style, and not to training or experience.

At the beginning of the project, the 12 at-risk children could not read or write conventionally. By the end of the intervention, however, 70 percent of the sample could write and read conventional short texts, both in and out of the play center. Linking literacy and play was found to be a successful strategy for literacy development.

The teachers and the principal were very supportive of the project, and they made a commitment to implement the literacy play program from 1st grade to 3rd grade. Unfortunately, the project was cancelled, due to social demands, political pressures, and various educational changes. Nevertheless, the project was a success--a microgenetic experience that modified the behaviors of the sample involved and promoted their literacy development (Moll, 1990).

Conclusions: What We Envision

One of Martin Luther King's most important, and enduring, statements was "I have a dream." This expression offers Argentinian educators hope for the new millennium, for we also have a dream. We have hope not only for human equality, but also for literacy development for all. We hope that the new millennium will provide time to abandon the "tragedy of the education" (Jaim Etcheverry, 1999), a tragedy in which millions of children, adolescents, and adults have been cast aside from knowledge, and from the very tools needed to gain knowledge. They are segregated, manipulated, rejected, and expelled from public education, not only in Argentina, but also around the world.

Our education system must develop new strategies for this new era. The climate to promote and sustain new strategies may be achieved when: 1) teachers are well paid; 2) bureaucratic red tape is minimized and efficiency is supported; 3) teaching methodologies consider "real" children, rather than the abstract, standardized children of theoretical frameworks; 4) literacy is assessed by authentic means; and 5) play becomes a essential part of literacy programs.

Can our dreams for literacy become a reality? Linking literacy and play can become an effective literacy strategy as political and educational changes provide the proper climate in which to focus on different ways to promote literacy. In addition, our dreams can be a possibility if policymakers would truly advocate for policies and laws to save, and care for, our children. Education and schooling deserve a new chance to achieve the goal of universal literacy. Neil Postman (1994) suggests that "children are the living messages we deliver to a future we will not live in." In light of this assertion, we should transform our deepest hopes into daily prayers: "Make schools zones of literacy for all children. Make play--literacy-enriched play--a new challenge for the new millennium."

References

Braslavsky, B. (1985). El metodo: [Spanish open quote] Panacea, negacion o pedagogia? Lectura y Vida, VI(4), 3-10.

Braslavsky, B. (1990). La lectoescritura incial: Ensayo de un paradigma didactico. Revista latinoamericana de innovaciones educativas, 33(1), 946.

Braslavsky, B. (1992). La escuela puede. Buenos Aires: Aique Grupo Editor.

Braslavsky, B. (1997). Para una historia de la pedagogia de la lectura en la Argentina [Spanish open quote] Como se enseno a leer desde 1810? Lectura y Vida, XVIII(4), 5-15.

Christie, J. F. (Ed.). (1991). Play and early literacy development. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Cossettini, O. (1961). La lengua escrita en le primer grad. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.

Dalton, I. (1995). The impact of play on early literacy development: A Latin American approach. Final Report. Elva Knight Research Committee. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Dalton, I. (1996, July). Contribuciones para la alfabetizacion con ninos por medio del juego. Paper presented at Congreso Internacional de Educacion, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Dalton, I. (1997, May). Cooperative design of play centers in literate classrooms. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Convention of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, GA.

Dalton, I. (1998). El juego y el rol docente en la zona de la alfabetizacion con ninos. Aprendizaje Hoy, XVIII(41), 7-26.

Dalton, I., & Christie, J. F. (1998). El juego y sus implicancias educativas en el aprendizaje de la alfabetizacion. Lectura y Vida, 18(1), 64-71.

Dalton, I., & Christie, J. F (1999). El juego en el desarrollo de la alfabetizacion: Una revision critica. Aprendizaje Hoy, XIX(44), 39-56.

Enz, B., & Christie, J. F. (1997). Teacher play interaction styles: Effects on play behavior and relationships with teacher training and experience. International Journal of Early Childhood Education, 2, 55-75.

Ferreiro, E. (1988). L'ecriture avant la lettre. In H. Sinclair (Ed.), La producation de notations graphiques chez l'enfant (pp. 17-71). Paris: Presse Universitaire de France.

Ferreiro, E. (1992). Children's literacy and public school in Latin America. Annals of American Society of Political and Social Sciences, 520, 143-150.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1979). Los sistemas de escritura en el desarrollo del ninos. Mexico: Siglo XXI.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before scholing. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1985). La costruzioue della lingua scritta nel bambino. Florencia: Giunti Barbera.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1986). Psicogenese da lingua escrita. Porto Alegre: Artes medicas.

Freire, P. (1975). Pedagogia del oprimido. Mexico: Siglo XXI.

Garcia, G. (1993). La alfabetizacion como espacio de conflicto teorico. Dos enfoques alternativos: El psicogenetico y el didactico. Lectura y Vida, XVIII, 2, 29-34.

Goodman, Y. (Ed.). (1990). How children construct literacy: Piagetian perspectives. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Greaney, V. (Ed.) (1996). Promoting reading in developing countries. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hall, N. (1998). Real literacy in a school setting: Five-years-olds take on the world. The Reading Teacher, 52(1), 8-17.

Hall, N., & Robinson, A. (1995). Exploring play and writing in early years. UK: Manchester University.

Iglesias, L. (1975). Didactica de la libre expresion. Buenos Aires: Ediciones pedagogicas.

Jaim Etcheverry, G. (1999). La tragedia educativa. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura economica.

Jones, E., & Reynolds, G. (1992). The play's the thing: Teachers' roles in children's play. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kaufman, A. M. (1988). La lectoescritura y la escuela. Buenos Aires: Santillana.

Municipalidad Ciudad de Buenos Aires. (1989). Diseno curricular para la educacion inicial. Buenos Aires: Secretaria de Educacion.

Moll, L. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky and education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on children's literacy behaviors in play. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 202-225.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and literacy enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 1(32), 95-143.

Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 163-175.

Postman, N. (1994). The disappearence of childhood. New York: Vintage Books.

Puiggros, A. (Ed.). (1994). Escuela y democracia en el periodo 1955-1970. Tomo IV: Buenos Aires: Galerna.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social contexts. New York: Oxford University Press.

Secretaria de Educacion. (1981). Diseno para la educacion primaria. Buenos Aires: Author.

Stone, S., & Christie, J. F. (1996). Collaborative literacy during sociodramatic play in a multiage (K-2) primary classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 123-133.

Taylor, D. (1993). Learning denied. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Teberosky, A. (1990). Aprender a escribir. Madrid: ICE/HORSORI.

Tedesco, J. C., Braslavsky, C., & Carciofi, R. (1987). El proyecto educativo autoritario en Argentina de 1976 a 1982. Buenos Aires: FLACSO/ Mino y Davila.

Tolchinsky, L. (1993). Aprender el lenguaje escrito. Madrid: Anthropos.

Torres, M. R. (1999). La alfabetizacion en el contexto de las nuevas politicas: Una vision desde America Latina. Textos en Contexto. Buenos Aires: Lectura y Vida Ediciones.

UNESCO. (1992). Education for all: Status and trends. Paris: Author.

UNICEF. (1999). World infant report: Education. London, UK: P & L Adamson.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1966). Igra i eerol'v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka. Voprosy Psikhologii, 6, 62-76.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1982-1984). Sobrannie sochenninnij. Moskow: Pedagogika.

World Bank. (1995). World development report. Washington, DC: Author.

Ignacio Dalton

Ignacio Dalton is Licenciado en Ciencias de la Educacion, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is pursuing a master's degree in Literacy and Cultural Studies.

Author's Note: I wish to express my gratitude to all my playmates of childhood. This paper is dedicated to my family and especially to my grandfather, Francisco Belleret.