Problem Students Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Problem Students - Essay Example Initially, I had to accommodate and modify my teaching methods and techniques as per the requirements of these children (Fisher, 2005). As a professional educator, it was my core responsibility to communicate with them in the best possible manner and listen to what they are saying. Despite following all the basic rules and procedures that must be followed while dealing with special education children, I encountered a serious problem (Olson, et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2008). Although the strategy that I adopted was quite effective and included all the basic requirements for special education, there was a lack of the communication plan with children with listening discrepancies. Since this was my first experience in the field of special education, therefore, I faced difficulty communicating with these children (Fisher, 2005). Although I made plans for everything else, I did not realize that these children need more attention and enhanced techniques of communication. However, with the help of my colleagues, I was able to learn various techniques to communicate with these children. I also took help of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) (Vickerman, 2007; Olson et al., 2008). The two months teaching experience in the field of special education taught me great lessons. It gave me patience and helped me realize the problems of special children in detail. I paid extra attention to such children and even arranged extra / special classes for these children on a weekly basis (Olson et al., 2008).

Corporate Finance FE Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Corporate Finance FE - Essay Example It is of note that only the long-term operating assets are incorporated in the calculation for the NOWC but not the short-term investments to be considered as the operating working capital because these short term investments are assumed to be interest bearing securities that to an extent do not directly finance or result from the operations of the Widget Corporation. 2. Seven years ago ABC Inc. issued a series of $1,000 bonds (i.e. Par = $1,000) @ 10% compounded semiannually for a term of 30 years. Additionally, the bonds are callable with a call premium of two coupon payments. Today, the market rate is 10% and each single bond is trading for $844.76. If ABC Inc. wants to raise new debt today, what would be ABC’s marginal cost of debt? Assume no significant change in ABC’s bond rating. Supposing there is no substantial alteration in the ABC’s bond rating means that today’s market bond rate is the same as market rate at the issuance time of the bond, thus the bond trades at par value ($ 1,000). The rate 12% calculated shows the market rate of the bond at present. Remember the present bond value is $ 844.76. The 12% rate represents the Yield To Maturity and therefore is a good estimation figure for the marginal cost of debt. 3. Considering Stand Alone Risk and the calculation of the Coefficient of Variation (CV), you are to develop a series of at least five historical returns for a financial asset and from these returns you are to calculate the CV for this financial asset. 4. You are bearing in mind making an investment in form of a project. The initial cost (I0) equals $1,200. In return for this initial outlay, you will own the rights to three future cash flows: CF1 = $300, CF2 = $400, and CF3 = $500. First, if the appropriate discount rate for this investment is 12%, what is the NPV for this project? Second, what discount rate would

Personal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 7

Personal - Essay Example   While my undergraduate course had been indispensable in carrying out the duties of my current job, I still felt the need to explore more on the studies of public administration to expand my knowledge and skills in public service which explains why I would like to pursue a post graduate degree in Public Administration with the Emphasis in Disaster Preparedness and Executive Fire Leadership as my first choice of academic program and Emphasis in Government and Policy as my secondary program of interest.   Both programs in Master in Public Administration deal with the advance levels of policy formulation, leadership and administrative preparedness in a public service context which explains why it interests me to explore through a formal study. I prefer to pursue post graduate academic training in Master in Public Administration with an Emphasis in Disaster Preparedness and Executive Fire Leadership University in Troy State University not only because of its excellent program and esteemed academic reputation, but also because of its holistic development program and the special emphasis it put on diversity. As a potential student in Master in Public Administration, I believe that I will tremendously benefit with this unique mix of academic training as well as having cultural and professional exposure because it will complement my academic education with cultural education. I believe that exposure to different nationality and profession is equally important especially in government because we are dealing with all kinds of people with different cultural background. I have a high regard of the academic standard of a post graduate study at Troy State University but I believe that my undergraduate study at University of Southern California had prepared me to undertake such academic rigor to be able to one of its exemplary students. I am a quick study albeit I also suffer the weakness of procrastination which is commonly shared by many

How has your understanding of ethnocentrism shaped your understanding Essay

How has your understanding of ethnocentrism shaped your understanding of the field of Sociology - Essay Example The concept of ethnocentrism arises from the deepest thoughts and understanding of people belonging to one culture about the culture of other people. The distinct ideas, living standards, traditions, moral values and norms of other cultures seem unacceptable and inferior to them. The basic reason of this irrational judgment about other’s culture lies in the fact that people tend to measure and observe cultures from their preset standards of their own. They tend to measure and evaluate every customer and practice of other cultures from their own perspectives about the issues as they learned from their own culture. Hence, observing other’s from the viewpoint of one’s own cultural perspective may define the concept of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism does not let a person view things and the world around them form other’s point of view. It, hence, acts as a hurdle in the way of understanding others. In today’s globalized environment, ethnocentrism may pose a threat to the peace and collaborative struggles of people working, living or studying together. Ethnocentric approach provides a one-sided view of everything and hence, the judgments made using this approach are narrow-minded and have limited scope.

Linguistics Essay Essay Example for Free

Linguistics Essay Essay Some key terms: cultural, social, situational meaning; language; phonetics; the vocal apparatus; the vocal cords; voiced-voiceless sounds; place of articulation; stress or accent; pitch or tone; morphology; morpheme (singular-plural, tense). Assignment # 1: Essay on â€Å"what can the way a person speaks tell us about that person?† (due 1/18 at lecture time). Week 2: Jan. 18 The structure of language. [Assign. 1 (essay) due today at lecture time] Some key terms: syntax: subject, verb, object; language types; semantics (†Colorless green ideas†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ); pragmatics. Jan. 20 Language structure analysis. Language, Culture, and Cognition. (hdt. #3.0 3.01) Readings: Bonvillain, Chaps. 2-cont. (pp. 22-27, 37-39) 3 (pp. 41-63) Some key terms: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; semantic or vocabulary domain; color language and color cognition; lexical classifications and ethnoscientific domains; focal meaning and fuzzy membership; cultural presupposition; metaphor, metonymy; metaphors of kinship, other metaphors; proverbs. Week 3 Jan. 25 Language, Culture, and Cognition. (Hdt. 3.1, 3.2- metaphors new words) â€Å"Metaphors We Live By†. Readings: Bonvillain, Ch. 3 (pp. 64-71) Jan. 27 Language and Culture: New Words in American English. Readings: Handouts: â€Å"Dictionary adds terms like chick flicks†; â€Å"Blog-blogger explained† â€Å"Words banned,† newspaper article. Project Explained: Profile of an ethno-linguistic group in the Los Angeles area. CHEM 105B Chapter 13 – 7 hours Chapter 14 – 7 hours Mastering Chemistry -8 hours Problems in Book – 2 hours Calculus 5.6 # 1,2,9,13,21,25 5.7 # 1,2,13,18*,35,39,45,48 5.8 # 1,11,13,16,21,27,29,32,35,41,49 * use a computer program 6.1 # 1,2,3,7,9,13,16,18,20,27,33,44 6.2 # 1,3,5,14,19,23,37,39,40,43,48,49,53,54 7 hours

Differences in liberal and realist approaches

Differences in liberal and realist approaches Every group interaction between humans in different activities entails defining the participants in discrete groups of two. The purpose of which is to differentiate between one group of participants that excel from the other group that does not. The exact labeling of these groups varies with the activity under consideration. Morally speaking, a person can be grouped into either good or evil class; Talking about football, a player can be grouped into either superior or inferior category; economics also entails dividing the people who study them as either classical or Keynesians. Though the initial two groups occupy the end points of a horizontal scale, there are many entities that interconnect these two, thereby filling the grey area. They never full advocate the logic of any one of the two rather argue for an amalgamation, offering a middle path to any eventual solution. The history of Political science as an academic field of study also has been imbued with an eternal clash of ideas between two schools of thought. Throughout generations these two schools have vied for the coveted position in explaining the nature of humans as political entities. One sees humans as increasingly self centered and find little in them to work collectively for the benefit of all humankind; the other believes in the selflessness of the same humanity and sees hope and reason to continue working for a world where everything would be characterized by principles of freedom. The former is called the Realist school of thought while the latter stance is that of the Liberals. The clash is particularly evident in the area of International Relations within Political Science. Here realists think of the international state system as increasingly anarchic, believe that all states work in their self interest and characterize international politics as power centered concentrating on balance of power, and finally that war is inevitable in the international state system. On the other hand, liberals argue that that there is great room for cooperation and benefit for all in the international state system, believe that states can and do work for mutual benefit and find evidence against the realist claim that all international politics is power politics. They also argue that war is avoidable and complex interdependence has also a role to play in the international arena. If the above demarcation separates the liberals and realists within IR, the academia within another relatively new sub discipline of Political Science, IPE, had also followed that pattern in their study of a relationship of international politics and economics. Realism in IPE has been more often called as mercantilism. In both case they represent the same school in a sense that both of them act as synonyms for a particular school of thought. Mercantilism has come to find more usage as a term within IPE as opposed to realism in IR. As the aspect of international politics economy under discussion is international tra de, I will use realism as mercantilism throughout the course of this paper to remain synonymous with the terminology used within IPE. The paper would give a brief introduction of the two discourses within IPE and then scrutinize them further side by side till the end of the paper. The conclusion aims to provide a brief understanding as to where were headed in this discussion now and in the future. Liberalism traces its roots to about two hundred years ago to economic philosophers Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Liberalism has abounded in popularity in the aftermath of the WWI and WWII. Although limitations have come around in the inability of liberalism to bear the fruit which it so vigorously argued for, liberals are found everywhere today in the business community of the West, Wall Street, IMF and World Bank etc. Liberals praise the benefits of free market and trade. Liberals most important contribution is the idea that all participants in a system of free markets and trade are beneficiaries (Cohen, p 12, 2008). The view does not stop at the junction of free market. They fail to give due importance to the role of Politics in free markets and trade. State for most liberals is a negative and holistic entity which should be kept out of the affairs of the free market as it impairs the Laissez-faire idea of market regulation. Mercantilism rightly claims to have the longest intellectual tradition because this emphasizes the importance of nations and power in thinking about economic issues. Mercantilists contrast most sharply with liberals in asserting that the gain of one nation usually comes at the expense of others (Cohen, p. 12, 2008). As a result mercantilists see international economy increasingly characterized by a close relationship between economic, technological and military strength; all topped by a greater national influence. Mercantilist arguments are increasingly used by countries and groups disadvantaged by international trade as a cover for their inability to stimulate domestic development process. They argue for self serving initiatives like protectionism etc. in the areas of economics and military technology. The contribution of mercantilists is to recognize that international economic relations operate within a world of competitive and conflictual nations (Cohen, p. 12, 2008). For mercant ilists, power and economic motives both play an important role in the shaping of international economic cooperation or competition. The two ends of the spectrum are linked together by a multitude of theories and discourses. The links at times appear to be very convincing while at other times add to the already prevalent confusion in this field. This uncertainty is what makes IPE as a discipline so interesting to study. The feeling of intrigue very much abounds within oneself as one studies more and more the web that connects nations in international politics or separates them. International political economy is not an easy subject and the major tool for analyzing IPE, trade, becomes harder to critically analyze with the aim of reaching towards a specific conclusion. Hence one should delve further into IPE with an open mind and let the discourse guide oneself towards any eventual conclusion. The modality of the topic requires me to compare and contrast liberalism and mercantilism. The framework that I intend to use is to analyze both in terms of their key actors, key dynamic and their stand on conflict and cooperation in the international arena of trade. I also intend to put side by side their inception as an academic school of thought and see if any meaningful result can be deducted from it. The origin of the mercantilist school of thought can be traced back to the emergence of nation based politics in Europe during the fifteenth century. Liberals found root in the wake of the industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. In this sense Mercantilism ideas have had a longer life than their liberalist counterparts. Liberal ideas earned much approval and favoritism in the wake of the failure of realism as an effective discourse describing and governing the international politics that led to the bloody World Wards I and II. Liberals see the international trade system as interdependent rather than anarchic and self serving as advocated by realists. Realists see the international trade as a zero sum game, the gain of one country is the loss of another, which liberals see it as a positive sum game that the growth of international trade is of benefit to everyone. Liberals give the idea of the growing of a pie, as the pie gets bigger the slice each participant ge ts also increases. Here one should question that this example fails to give due account to the question that which participant gets the bigger slice. Also that due to the comparative or absolute advantages that some countries hold over the other, those countries grow at a rate higher than the others. Also the countries not possessing the comparative or absolute advantage require huge domestic political costs to be entailed if a shift is made from no advantage sectors to ones having comparative advantage in its domestic economy; these costs include unemployment, temporary inflation, public backlash, loss of political support for the government in power etc. For example during the Vietnam war, President Nixon decided against raising taxes to cut back US trade deficit because it might weaker his already fragile political support. Now this differential growth rates for different countries presents itself as a dilemma for a state especially since the concept of a state is an entity that is supposed to provide the best possible package of security, progress and life style towards its citizens. In the pursuit of this self or collective interest of realists and liberals respectively, the former believe that power has an equal, if not stronger, role to play along with economics in the international economy and trade relations; the latter tend to underplay the role of power in the international politics and emphasize the ability of states to choose between attractive courses of action. Nevertheless, mercantilist arguments have often come to be chosen as routes for underdeveloped nations to catch up with their developed counterparts. Alexander Hamilton writing in the 1970s urged Americans to protect their manufacturers from foreign competition so that they could industrialize and increase their power. Almost a hundred years later, Fredrick List argued that Germany should industrialize behind trade barriers so that it could catch up to the economic might of Great Britain (OBrien Williams, 2004). The protectionist apprehensions or favoritism continue till this day. As recently as on the 17th of November this year, President Hu Jintao of China in a joint news conference with President Obama called for joint opposition to trade protectionism (China and US to work together, 2009). Realists see the state as the key actor in the international arena, while for liberals the starting point of analysis is the individual. Liberals argue for a complete freedom for the needs of the individual by arguing that if left alone the individuals would maximise the gain of the entire humankind regardless of their origin. Liberals see state interference in the market as negative and advocate the freedom of the market to self govern. Realists on the other hand believe that there is nothing natural about markets. They are artificially within the social contract of each state, which requires that a markets functions have to be regulated by a higher authority. Similarly realists doubt the role firms have to play within the domestic markets and as expected for liberals the presence of firms is a positive omen in a sense it increases the overall wealth of any country. Realists prefer state to the individual and for liberals its vice versa. Even within liberal thought, there exist a de marcation separating those who are hardcore liberals and those who acknowledge the role state has to play. It ranges from those who see the state fading away in an emerging borderless world (Ohmae 1990) that will be dominated by private business to liberal institutionalists (Keohane and Nye, 1977) who stress the continuing importance of the state, but see it enmeshed in webs of interdependence and international organization (OBrien Williams, 2004). Moving towards the dynamics of these two discourses, for liberal theorists the market lies at the centre of economic life (OBrien Williams, 2004). Realists feel the rational activity of the state characterizes the dynamics of international trade and cooperation. Here the rational activity by any is undertaken with an aim to get the best possible outcome for its citizens. Liberals admit the shortfall of markets to weave their magic in certain fragile times of international trade but theyre almost certain in their belief that any further state involvement at that fragile instant is certain to worse the already weak market situation. Realists back out of this argument by maintaining that market relations are important but market is governed by the activities of the state. Economic activities and actors are subordinate to political agendas and actors respectively. The consequence of the salience of the state is that international economic relations become international political relatio ns (OBrien Williams, 2004). Realist scholars believe that the nature of global economy reflects the interests of the most powerful states by arguing that free trade regimes tend to exist during the times when a single state dominates the entire world system; as the hegemon can absorb the costs associated with imposing the free trade system. As the system degrades towards a multiple power centre system, conflict characterizes the international relationship between states as interests contradict. Liberals maintain that if all the countries maintain free trade policies and shun self centered motives, conflict would certainly not take place. They give the example of Europe following the WWII and also that liberal democracies never go to war with one another. The phenomenon of globalization has evoked two tiered response within both the realist and the liberal school of thought. Defensive nationalists within realism admit the presence of globalization and work to undermine it rather tha n skeptics who dont see any form of globalization at all. Within liberalism too a similar trend is produced; hyper globalists see globalization as breaking down barriers between countries and unleashing a force of production bound to produce further happiness for humankind (OBrien Williams, 2004). Liberals influenced with Keynesian principles still see the problems of free markets in certain scenarios as cause for possible hesitation towards globalization; it might have some unwanted outcomes. They support the need for market reform till its perfection is achieved. Finally dealing with the aspect of conflict and cooperation, liberals see international trade as essentially cooperative as opposed to the realist view that it is conflictual. Example of theories within both the schools that advocate their respective ideas include the theory of comparative advantage within liberalism that describe that even while possessing a comparative advantage, not absolute, in a certain area of production, one can benefit from trade in the international trade. Realist power based theories moan the absence of any higher authority in the international state system which they see as must to regulating any cooperation and mutual benefit in the international trade. The concern for liberals with nationalist policies is that they lead to conflict. Liberal theorists see trade interaction as strengthening bonds for peace and stability. The liberal belief in the connection between protectionist policies and conflict and the reverse argument, namely that capitalist favours peace and conflict and the reverse argument, namely that capitalist favours peace, is central to the liberal critique of the international economic order. (OBrien Williams, p. 20, 2004) Immanuel Kant foresaw an era of perpetual peace when all the world market systems would be characterized by Free states and international state an alliance of democratic states. Woodrow Wilson advocated adopting liberal principles for the international state system following World War I; also a founding principle for the League of Nations. Similar nationalist policies following the Great Depression were understood to have aggravated relations between countries leading up to the World War II. Citing the pluralist nature of international trade and economic system, liberal theory of complex interdependence explain the connection between increase economic exchange and interconnectedness and the long peace among Western nations after 194 5represent classical liberal political economy (OBrien Williams, p. 21, 2004). The belief of international cooperation and conflict of realists tend to start with their lack of total belief in the abilities of market. Markets for realists produce both positive and negative outcomes. Since, due to their inherent assumption I believe, most realists see markets negative outcomes more than their positive ones realists argue for state control of important economic variables of their domestic economy. A liberal economy sees these very controls as measures of protectionism. Mercantilist arguments are prevalent more in sectors which are either critical to a nations existence or has to do with their cultural values. Examples of either of these could be a countrys defence industry or their local film and music industry etc. With the culmination of the cold war as well as the communist setups of many countries around the globe it appears liberal policies have seem to be dominate, for now. It remains to be seen how long does this majority support goes in red efining the international economic and political structure. Some liberals went as far as to claim that history had ended because the liberal democratic model had triumphed over other forms of social organization (Fukuyama, 1992). Robert Cox said, Theory is always for someone and for some purpose (p. 207, 1986). The presence of different ideas in analyzing one aspect of international economic system finds its roots in a number of reasons. The first of these is that although all the theories are trying to explain one single phenomenon, they are looking at it from different angles. One theory looks at it from the angle of security, for the other its economics that holds the upper hand and for another school of thought, Marxism or critical perspective, its all about class struggle. Another reason is the group of people the theorization is coming from. Rich and influential people would tend to favour liberal trade policies as it offers the least resistance in conducting their business and reaping profits. Under privileged group of people would advocate for protectionist policies that would protect their interests. One last reason is that due to the subjective nature of opinions and reasons, it is not possible to g et an absolute categorization of a theory as right or wrong. Theories are based on observations, not mathematical truths. Thus their rightfulness depends on the value judgment that particular groups of people apply to them. It is important for us to realize is that we do not have to follow any one particular school of thought blindly. The presence of multiple layers of explanation presents one with a tool to apply ones thinking to any specific case. More over one can find any amalgamation describing ones own stance between these layers of theorizations that has taken place until now within International Political Economy. References Cohen, B. (2008). International Political Economy An Intellectual History, 17 39. OBrien, R., Williams, M. (2004). Global Political Economy Evolution and Dynamics, 11 36. (2009, November 17). China and US to work together. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8363643.stm

Play Preferences of Developing Children

Play Preferences of Developing Children This cross-sectional survey research investigated play preferences of children with and without developmental delays who were between 3 and 7 years old. Parents completed questionnaires regarding their childs play activity and context preferences. Valid results were obtained for 166 children, 83 of whom had developmental delays. Preference ratings were compared by gender, age, and delay status. Play preference did not differ by gender. Rough-and-tumble play and computer/video game play increased with age, whereas object exploration decreased. Children with developmental delays had higher preferences for rough-and-tumble play and object exploration and lower preferences for drawing and coloring, construction, and doll and action figurine play than typically developing children. This comparison of childrens play preferences across ages, gender, and developmental status enhances our understanding of how these variables influence childrens play. ABSTRACT This cross-sectional survey research investigated play preferences of children with and without developmental delays who were between 3 and 7 years old. Parents completed questionnaires regarding their childs play activity and context preferences. Valid results were obtained for 166 children, 83 of whom had developmental delays. Preference ratings were compared by gender, age, and delay status. Play preference did not differ by gender. Rough-and-tumble play and computer/video game play increased with age, whereas object exploration decreased. Children with developmental delays had higher preferences for rough-and-tumble play and object exploration and lower preferences for drawing and coloring, construction, and doll and action figurine play than typically developing children. This comparison of childrens play preferences across ages, gender, and developmental status enhances our understanding of how these variables influence childrens play. Play is a primary childhood occupation and as such deserves the utmost attention from the occupational therapy profession. In the past, many authors have written about play as a means to measure other skills (Bundy, 1993) or as a reflection of child development (Sparling, Walker, Singdahlsen, 1984). Play has been observed, categorized, labeled, and studied by researchers in many fields (Cole la Voie, 1985; Fein, 1981; Gesell, 1940; Parten, 1932; Saunders, Sayer, Goodale, 1999). Previous research has clearly demonstrated that children progress through stages and exhibit differing play preferences over time (Cole la Voie, 1985; Fein, 1981; Lowe, 1975). Recently, occupational therapy scholars have stressed the importance of examining play as an occupation rather than analyzing its component parts (Bundy, 1993; Couch, Deitz, Kanny, 1998, Knox, 1997; Parham Primeau, 1997). Influences on Play Preferences Many variables (e.g., gender, culture, environment, and age) influence a childs play occupations. This descriptive study explores young childrens play preferences and investigates how play choices vary according to the childs age, gender, and typical development versus developmental delay status. Gender Research has repeatedly demonstrated gender differences in the play of typical children (Caldera, Huston, OBrien, 1989; Connor Serbin, 1977; Meyer-Bahlburg, Sandberg, Dolezal, Yager, 1994; Saracho, 1990). In early studies of preferences related to gender, researchers found that girls preferred dolls and house toys and boys preferred blocks and transportation toys (Fein, 1981). Recent research continues to find gender-related differences in many aspects of play beginning at early ages. For example, as early as 1 year of age, children make different toy choices based on their gender (Servin, Bohlin, Berlin, 1999). At 18 months of age, boys preferred to play with trucks and trailers, whereas girls preferred doll-related activities (Lyytinen, Laakso, Poikkeus, Rita, 1999). Gender differences are found in many aspects of play. Boys are more likely to choose physical and block play over dramatic and manipulative play, and girls are the reverse (Saracho, 1990). Although boys are more likely to enjoy vigorous or active play, girls are generally rated as more playful (Saunders et al., 1999) and more likely to enjoy both dyadic interaction (Benenson, 1993) and smaller play groups than boys. Within dramatic or fantasy play, the type of fantasy play performed differs by gender. For example, girls use more verbal pretending and choose different play themes (Wall, Pickert, Gibson, 1989) and demonstrate less aggressive content (von Klitzing, Kelsay, Emde, Robinson, Schmitz, 2000). Girls fantasy themes tend to be complex and abstract. In contrast, boys play is more physically vigorous and they tend to choose simpler fantasy themes, such as playing superheroes (Pellegrini Bjorklund, 2004). Boys and girls also differ in play with computers and video games. Boys generally play video games more frequently and for longer time periods (Kafai, 1998), and they tend to play games in which competition is important. Girls like games with in-depth social interactions and character development; they appear to enjoy participating in a story more than participating in a competitive game (Salonius-Pasternak, 2005). Age A childs age is related to both play skills and play preferences for the type and context of play. Developmental changes in play skill have been found in a variety of studies of childrens play. For example, pretend play first emerges between 1 and 2 years of age and increases in prevalence and frequency throughout the preschool and kindergarten years (Fein, 1981). Play preferences have been shown to begin early in life. Infant toy preferences are noted by mothers as early as 3 months of age, and by 1 year of age almost 90% of infants have a favorite object (Furby Wilke, 1982). Children have also demonstrated changes over time in their preference for specific forms of play, such as physical play. In one study of physical play, the authors found that preference for each of three types of physical play peaks at a different age (Pellegrini Smith, 1998). Rhythmic stereotypes dominate during infancy, exercise play peaks during the preschool years, and rough-and-tumble play is most common during middle childhood. Age also interacts with gender to affect the choices. For example, the preferences of young children for gender-segregated groups begin to change in pre-adolescence (Brown, 1990), as do the gender-specific preferences for indoor and outdoor play (Pellegrini, 1992). Age may be less of a factor in play development in children with disabilities (Sigafoos, Roberts-Pennell, Graves, 1999). Developmental Delay or Disability Multiple studies have demonstrated that children with physical disabilities play differently than children who are developing typically. Children with physical disabilities spend more time in passive activities (Brown Gordon, 1987) and may demonstrate less active involvement with objects (Gowen, Johnson-Martin, Goldman, Hussey, 1992). Children with physical disabilities spend more time with adults than with their peers and participate more in passive activities, such as television watching, than in active and varied play experiences (Howard, 1996). In addition, children with physical disabilities, cerebral palsy in particular, may be less playful than their typically developing peers (Okimoto, Bundy, Hanzlik, 2000). Based on previous research, it is unclear whether children with disabilities have different play preferences or merely have an inability to access various forms of play. One study demonstrated that children with mild motor disabilities held preferences similar to children without disabilities (Clifford Bundy, 1989). In a study investigating object play preferences in children with an autistic spectrum disorder, Desha, Ziviani, and Rodger (2003) found that the children (41 to 86 months old) engaged predominantly in functional play and preferred toys with salient sensorimotor properties (toys that produced sound or movement with minimal effort). Other research has suggested that children with autism prefer toys and play situations that are structured and predictable (Ferrara Hill, 1980). Contextual Variables Contextual factors may affect play occupations. Researchers have demonstrated that children have fairly stable preferences for play partners, including the gender of play partners (Hay, Payne, Chadwick, 2004; Martin Fabes, 2001), play settings, and play objects (Knox, 1997). Other studies suggest that the physical environment impacts childrens development of play occupations. For example, outdoor play provides children with opportunities for sensory exploration (e.g., in dirt, water, sand, and mud), learning about space, and vigorous physical activity. Indoor play offers opportunities for quiet play, reading, drawing, construction, and computer games (Clements, 2004). Research Questions The literature on childrens play preferences suggests that children have clear preferences that are influenced by gender, age, and developmental status. Examining the current play choices and preferences of children is important to further understand the development of play occupations and what variables influence a childs play choices. This study investigated the play preferences of children with and without developmental delays who were between 3 and 7 years old. The specific research questions that guided our survey research were the following: 1. Do boys and girls differ in their play activity preferences? 2. Do childrens play activity preferences differ by age in early childhood years? 3. Do play activity preferences differ between children with developmental delays who receive therapy services and children with typical development? Methods Sample Convenience sampling was used to recruit parents of children with typical development or with developmental delays (who received occupational, speech, or physical therapy services) who were between 3 and 8 years old to complete a survey describing play preferences. A total of 330 surveys were provided to parents of typically developing children and children with developmental delays in the Northeast and the Midwest regions in the United States. In the Midwest, participants were obtained through a large childcare center and two preschools. All participants in the Northeast were obtained through two large private practice clinics. To obtain a sample of typically developing children in the Northeast, parents of children receiving therapy services in the clinics were asked to complete a survey for a sibling without developmental problems. Instrument The survey was based on Takatas instrument (Takata, 1969) that measures play preferences and the categories were modified to reflect modern play activities. The survey required parents to respond to a list of play activity preferences for one of their children. Studies have demonstrated that mothers can accurately rank play activities (Tamis-LeMonda, Damast, Bornstein, 1994) and parent report has been used previously in research of childrens play preferences (Finegan, Niccols, Zacher, Hood, 1991). The survey listed play activities and contexts and asked parents to rate their childs preference for each activity and context. Parents were also asked to provide information about age, disability status, and gender. The parents were asked about play preferences within a 3-month period because other researchers have suggested that play preferences remain relatively stable within this period of time (Finegan et al., 1991). Parents were not asked questions regarding their nationality, race, ethnicity, social class, or socioeconomic status because these factors have not been demonstrated to be related to play preferences (Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1994). To pilot test the survey, two peer reviewers commented on the items and then six parents completed the survey and were asked to comment on its format and clarity and the amount of time it took to complete. Minimal revisions were made to improve clarity. The final survey listed 37 play activities in 11 categories of play and 11 contextual variables. The survey used a 4-point Likert scale for scoring, with each play activity rated from highly preferred (4) to not preferred (1), and respondents could also select not applicable. Individual activities were listed under broader categories (e.g., gross motor play, creative play, and pretend play). The second part of the survey asked for the childs preferences for specific play environments, including social context (e.g., friends or family) and physical contexts (e.g., inside or outside). A third section asked for descriptive information about the child (e.g., gender, birth date, diagnosis, if any, and services received). Data Analysis Demographic data and preference ratings were summarized using descriptive statistics. Children were combined into age groups by year by rounding to the nearest year. Although specific diagnoses were identified for the children, the children were grouped into those with and without developmental delays for purposes of analysis. To reduce the data, the individual activities were combined into play categories (e.g., gross motor, rough-and-tumble play, and pretend play). The 33 activities were collapsed into 9 play categories and the 11 contextual variables were collapsed into 4 play contexts. The figure identifies how the items were combined into categories. When computing mean scores, the responses not applicable and not preferred were combined as a score of 1 because both responses indicated that the child did not engage in that play activity. Using each play category and play context, a three-way analysis of variance with gender, age, and disability status as the independent variables was computed. Scheffe post-hoc analyses were used to compare individual age groups. Effect sizes (Cohens d) were calculated for gender and developmental status comparisons. Although a Likert scale produces ordinal data, parametric statistical procedures were selected over non-parametric statistical procedures based on research demonstrating that these statistics result in the same conclusions as non-parametric tests (Glass, Peckham, Sanders, 1972), they are preferable in most cases, and they do not increase the likelihood of a Type I or Type II error (Nanna Sawilowsky, 1998; Rasmussen Dunlap, 1991). Use of parametric statistics allowed us to examine t he interactions among the variables. Results Sample A total of 175 surveys were returned. Only five surveys for 8 year olds were returned; therefore these were omitted from the analysis. Of the 170 remaining, 166 were sufficiently complete to use in the analysis. Demographic data for the sample are presented in Table 1. Gender The three-way analysis of variance identified no significant differences in play activity preferences between boys and girls (effect size ranged from .01 to .26). Table 2 lists the mean scores, analysis of variance results, and effects sizes for the primary play categories. Play preferences were remarkably similar for boys and girls, with equivalent preference for gross motor play, rough-and-tumble play, video and computer games, drawing and coloring, dolls, and pretend play. The interaction for gender and age was significant for doll play preference. Three- to four-year-old boys preferred play with dolls and action figurines more than 3- to 4-year-old girls. In contrast, 5- to 6-year-old boys preferred play with dolls and action figurines less than 5- to 6-year-old girls. Play contexts were also compared by gender. Boys (m = 2.03) and girls (m = 1.95) were equally neutral about playing alone (F [1,156] = .074; p = .786). Both boys (m = 2.63) and girls (m = 2.60) equally preferred to play with friends (F [1, 156] = .031; p = .860) and equally preferred indoor (mean range: 2.73 to 2.80) and outdoor (mean range: 2.75 to 2.86) play. Age Groups Play preferences were compared by age groups. Table 3 shows which play categories were significantly different for age groups between 3 and 7 years old. In this early childhood age span, changes in play preferences were few. Preference for rough-and-tumble play changed significantly from 3 to 7 years old. Rough-and-tumble play was preferred most at 5 years old and was only somewhat preferred at 7 years old. Preference for video and computer games increased significantly in this age range. Video and computer game play was scored between not preferred and neutral at 3 years old and was somewhat preferred by 7 years old. Preference for drawing and coloring and construction increased from 3 to 7 years old, but these differences were not significant. Preference for pretend play differed significantly across the age groups, with low preference scores at the youngest and oldest ages and higher preference scores at 4 and 5 years old. Doll and action figurine play was also highest at 4 years old; however, changes in doll play preference were not significant across age groups. When play contexts were compared across the age groups, children showed no differences in preference for playing alone (range: 1.88 to 2.23; F [4,156] = 1.3; p = .272) or with friends (range: 2.27 to 2.93; F [4,156] = 1.95; p = .105) or for playing indoors (range: 2.35 to 2.86; F [4,153] = .793: p = .531) or outdoors (range: 2.50 to 2.91; F [4,152] = 1.23; p = .300). The least preferred play context across all ages was alone. Children With and Without Developmental Delays Play preferences of children with developmental delays were compared to those of children with typical development. Mean scores, analysis of variance results, and effect sizes are presented in Table 4. Children in the delayed and non-delayed groups equally preferred gross motor play, but rough-and-tumble play was preferred more by children with developmental delays, demonstrating a moderate effect (d = .52). In the quiet play categories, typically developing children preferred drawing and coloring more than children with developmental delays. For drawing and coloring, there was also an interaction with gender: preferences of boys with developmental delays (m = 2.57) were lower than those of boys with typical development (m = 3.42), but girls were equivalent in the two groups (developmental delays m = 3.13; typical development m = 3.19). In children with developmental delays, preference for doll and action figurine play was significantly less and preference for object exploration was slightly greater than for children without developmental delays. Although pretend play did not differ in these groups, the interaction of age and developmental delay status for pretend play preference was significant. In younger children (3 and 4 years old), those who were typically developing preferred pretend play; this preference reversed by 7 years old when preferences of children with developmental delays were significantly higher than typically developing children for pretend play. Play preferences for these two groups of children are rank ordered in Table 5. The five most preferred play forms for children with typical development were gross motor, drawing and coloring, reading and watching television, construction, and rough-and-tumble play. The five most preferred play forms for children with developmental delays were rough-and-tumble play, gross motor, reading and watching television, drawing and coloring, and construction. Preferred play contexts also differed for the two groups. Although both groups were neutral about playing alone, children with developmental delays showed a lower preference for playing with friends (m = 2.29) than children with typical development (m = 2.93) (F [1,156] = 13.11; p Discussion Gender Comparisons A surprising finding was that boys and girls held the same or similar play preferences. For example, we found no differences between boys and girls in doll and action figurine play or pretend play. In contrast, most of the research literature has concluded that boys and girls prefer different types of play. In older studies (Fagot, 1974, 1978; McDowell, 1937), girls and boys preferred different toys (i.e., girls preferred dolls and house toys, whereas boys preferred blocks and transportation toys). During the preschool and early childhood years, boys are more likely to adopt fantasy and aggressive play (e.g., monsters or fighting) and girls are more likely to play house (Fein, 1981). One possible reason for our finding that boys and girls were similar in play preferences is that we broadly defined doll play to include play with action figurines (e.g., Batman, Spiderman, and robots), which are considered boy toys. With dolls defined this broadly, boys and girls did not differ. In the research literature, pretend play is not the only play category where boys and girls differ. In two studies of children between 4 and 12 years old, boys preferred rough-and-tumble play and girls preferred quiet play (Finegan et al., 1991; Saracho, 1990). Saracho (1990) found that boys are more likely to prefer physical and block play over dramatic and manipulative play, and girls were the reverse. In a review of electronic play, Salonius-Pasternak (2005) reported that boys spend more time in video and computer game play than girls. Our study found no differences between boys and girls in preference for gross motor, rough-and-tumble play, or video game activities. Gym sets, trikes and bikes, and playgrounds were preferred play activities for both genders. When genders are compared, preferences of boys and girls were remarkably similar. Boys were slightly, but not significantly, higher than girls in rough-and-tumble play (d = .26), and other areas that differed in previous studies (e.g., preference for video and computer games and drawing and coloring) were equivalent. The equivocal results between our study and those that preceded it may be explained by their different methodologies (e.g., our survey used parent report and listed both boy and girl examples of the play categories). Gender differences may not exist when broad play categories are measured. Age Comparisons When the ages of the children were compared, three categories showed significant differences across age groups. Rough-and-tumble play increased from 3 to 5 years old, and then decreased from 5 to 7 years old. As preference for rough-and-tumble play decreased, preference for video and computer games increased. Other researchers (Salonius-Pasternak, 2005) have documented the increase in computer game play, which begins at 7 years old and peaks in adolescence. As documented in the literature, pretend play increases during the preschool years (3 to 5 years old) and decreases after 6 years old (Fein, 1981), when rule-governed games begin to dominate play (Parham Primeau, 1997). Other categories showed expected trends, but differences among the age groups were not significant. Gross motor play (defined as bike, trike, tag, and gym set activities) did not decrease across the age groups and was consistently a highly preferred activity. Drawing and coloring, construction, watching television, and reading activities remained somewhat preferred throughout the age range. The development of play skills has been well documented by researchers (Rosenblatt, 1977; Takata, 1969); however, most research has focused on the first 2 to 3 years of life, which is when play skills change dramatically. Our study captured ages during which play preference is stable for certain forms of play and evolving for others. Takata (1969) conceptualized 4 to 7 years old as one play epoch. Dramatic role playing, social role playing, and realistic construction characterize this epoch. Play preferences appear to change substantially after 7 years old, which is when children prefer games with rules and social play in the context of organized games. Our findings regarding the effect of age on play preferences, which were significant but not dramatic, may reflect that our age range was essentially one play epoch (Takata, 1969). Differences Between Children With and Without Developmental Delays In our sample, children with developmental delays were primarily children with sensory integration dysfunction, autism, pervasive developmental disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or general developmental delays. Children with these diagnoses often have motor planning difficulty, sensory processing problems, and social and communication limitations without frank motor, manipulation, and mobility impairments. The play preferences of children with developmental delays were consistent with the performance limitations associated with these development disorders. Children with developmental delays preferred rough-and-tumble play significantly more than children with typical development. This preference may reflect the sensory needs of children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, or sensory integration disorder. Rough-and-tumble play, such as wrestling and rough housing, provides children with deep tissue pressure and joint compression, which is the proprioceptive input that helps their systems organize and calm (Baranek, 2002; Blanche Schaaf, 2001). In addition, rough-and-tumble play does not demand fine motor skills or precision performance; it is play in which almost every child can participate and succeed. The other play category in our study preferred significantly more by children with developmental delays was object exploration. Object exploration reflects basic sensory motor play that predominates in children 1 to 3 years old and decreases during the preschool years as more skillful and symbolic play emerges. The higher preference by children with developmental delays probably reflects preference for simpler, lower demand play activities. In other play forms, typically developing children showed higher preference; they preferred drawing and coloring and dolls and action figurines more than children with developmental delays. These play forms require fine motor and manipulative skills, and they require higher levels of cognitive ability, imagination, pretend, and understanding of symbols. In addition, the interaction of pretend play, age, and developmental delay was significant. At younger ages, pretend play was preferred more by children with typical development; this reversed at older ages, when pretend play was preferred more by children with developmental delays. Therefore, the children with developmental delays developed an interest in pretend play at older ages, which is when interest by children with typical development was diminishing. This finding contrasts with that of Sigafoos et al. (1999), who found that children with disabilities did not exhibit play forms beyond sensorimotor and functional play. Our contrasting findings may be explained because the children in our sample were less severely involved. Both groups were neutral (mean range: 1.81 to 2.45) for doll and action figurine play and pretend play. This neutral preference may reflect that the time spent in pretend play is minimal when compared to other play forms. Fein (1981) suggested that preschool children spend between 10% and 17% of their time in pretend play, which reflects only a small portion of boys and girls total play time. Sigafoos et al. (1999) observed that children with developmental delays spent 10% of their time in pretend play. When the types of play are rank ordered by preference, pretend play and doll and action figurine play have the lowest preference scores. Numerous studies have documented differences in play when children with disabilities were compared to children without disabilities. Research demonstrates differences in play skills (Mogford, 1977), object and social play (Sigafoos et al., 1999), and playfulness (Clifford Bundy, 1989; Okimoto et al., 2000). Sigafoos et al. (1999) followed preschool children with developmental disabilities for 3 years and documented that they primarily engaged in exploratory (28%) and functional play (57%) and that these percentages did not change over time. Baranek, Reinhartsen, and Wannamaker (2001) described the play of children with autism as lacking in imitation and imagination, containing fewer play repertoires, exhibiting decreased play organization, and exhibiting limited social play. Their play tends to lack flexibility and creativity (Craig Baron-Cohen, 1999). Functional play seems to dominate in children with autism with minimal evidence of pretend or symbolic play (Libby, Powell, Messer, Jordan, 1998). Differences in children with sensory integration dysfunction have been identified by Parham and Mailloux (2005) and may be more subtle than the differences seen in autism (Desha et al., 2003). The play of children with sensory integration dysfunction is often limited in play scenarios because they avoid certain play experiences that cause sensory feedback discomfort and they have restricted action repertoires due to perceptual difficulties and dyspraxia (Knox, 2005; Parham Mailloux, 2005). Using a sample of preschool age children (4 to 6 years) with sensory integration dysfunction, Clifford and Bundy (1989) did not find significant differences in play materials preferences but did find differences in how the children used toys. Our sample with developmental delays, which included autism, sensory integration dysfunction, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, showed trends similar to the literature in that the children preferred simple play forms (i.e., object exploration and rough-and-tumble play) to more complex and skilled play forms (i.e., drawing and coloring and pretend play). When all play preference categories are ranked, the order of preference differed between groups, but the top five preferences were the same. The primary difference between the groups was in rough-and-tumble play (ranked first for children with developmental delays and fifth for children with typical development). Object exploration was the least preferred for children with typical development and dolls were least preferred for children with developmental delays. Consistent with the literature that describes problems in social play in children with developmental delays, children with typical development had significantly higher preferences for playing with friends (d = .57) than children with developmental delays. Playing alone was significantly more preferred in children with developmental delays. Response to these items may reflect the childs preference or may relate to actual play opportunities and experiences. Delays in communication and social interaction may create barriers for children with developmental delays to play with peers (Baranek et al., 2001; Tanta, 2004). Clinical Implications The findings of our study confirm the importance of physical play because, almost universally, the study participants enjoyed, and often preferred, physical play. At the same time, the participants balanced their preference for physical play with more sedentary play forms, such as reading, watching television, drawing and coloring, and construction. The range of preferences may indicate the need for relaxation as one aspect of play (Parham Primeau, 1997). Children seem to have broad and varied play preferences because 6 of the 11 play forms were rated as somewhat to highly preferred. Individual play preferences appear to be best defined by the player and cannot be assumed based on age, gender, or disability status. Of concern is the preference of children with developmental delays t