Designing Play Equipment for Children with Cerebral Palsy: the context and design guidelines

Full text

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0
International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Designing play equipment for children with cerebral
palsy: the context and design guidelines
This paper presents an investigation into designing play equipment for encouraging
peer-to-peer social interactions of children with cerebral palsy as a part of
developing their social competence. The focus is on developing a new model of, and
guidelines for designing play equipment for engaging children in peer interactions
during play sessions. Research projects on the development of children with cerebral
palsy have to date mainly concentrated on physical and cognitive areas or on social
development through special educational programmes and trainings. This paper, in
contrast, investigates developing social competence through empowering children
to participate in open-ended group play through a new model of play equipment.
Child-centred design; social competence; cerebral palsy; play equipment
Introduction
Despite the modern achievements of medicine, the birth of a child may entail unforeseen
consequences connected with numerous disorders. Infantile cerebral palsy is one of them. The issue
of rehabilitation, development and sustentation of health conditions for these children requires a
comprehensive and complex approach. According to the statistics of the National Health Service
(NHS 2016), it is estimated that 1 in 400 people in the UK is affected by cerebral palsy.
Approximately 1800 children are diagnosed with cerebral palsy every year. There are an estimated
30000 children with cerebral palsy in the UK (NHS 2016).
The most direct definition of cerebral palsy is that it is one of the most common forms of physical
disability amongst young children (Parkes et al, 2001). Rozsahegyi (2014, p.47-53) examines a range
of definitions of cerebral palsy and observes that the available explanations are often medical in
nature. As a result, support for these children is often therapeutic in nature and focuses on problems
of motor coordination, balance and mobility, gross and fine movement (Cogher et al. 1992; Farrell
2008; Hinchcliffe 2007), while the picture of how cerebral palsy affects the child’s development is
much broader.
In his Social development theory, Vygotsky (1978) suggested that a developmental disorder has two
implications: primary – the neurological, biological impairment, secondary – the social and cognitive
implications which hinders the child to participate in everyday activities. He stresses the importance
of social interactions and states that socialisation plays a significant role in children’s development.

Lave and Wenger (1991) also draw attention to the importance of social interaction in development.
They argue that social interaction and collaboration are critical components of development. In spite
of this recognition of the importance of social interactions, it is still insufficiently studied.
As a group, children with cerebral palsy perform less well socially than do peers with typical
development (McConnell and Odom 1999, pp.67-74). According to Guralnick et al. (1996, pp.359-
377), children with cerebral palsy, when compared to typically developing children of similar ages,
interact with peers less often and are less well accepted. Children who do not have a basic level of
social competence by the age of six may have difficulties with relationships when they will be adults
(Blandon et al. 2010; Ladd 2000; Parker & Asher 1987). The fundamental outcomes that need to be
achieved for many disabled children and young people according to Department of Education (DfE,
2014) are communication. From the above, the idea of addressing social competence for these
children was derived, as this is an important prerequisite for their holistic development.
The primary context for the development of social competence is play interaction with peers
(Goldstein 2012, pp.5-8; Whitebread 2012, pp.5-6). During play, children are able to test out social
roles and learn acceptable social rules. They are encouraged to share, take turns, cooperate,
consider others’ perspectives, and acquire self-control (Bracken, 2000; Gagnon & Nagle, 2004). The
opportunity to play and explore provides children with the ability to learn about likeness and
differences, acceptance and understanding, and socialization in a way that cannot be taught through
any other means.
All children learn through play, but play does not come naturally to all children. Sometimes the right
tool can spark enough interest to start something new. The term for tools used in children’s play is
play equipment. As part of the physical environment, it has the ability to contribute or retard
developmental process. Designing play equipment that are appropriate for children with cerebral
palsy can be challenging. This project is primarily focused on clarifying the issues that must be taken
into consideration when designing play equipment for developing social competence of children.
Play equipment in this study is regarded not only as a part of physical environment or tool for
children to play with. Here play equipment is treated as a tool for engaging children into child –
object – child interactions.
Encouraging social competence development of children with cerebral palsy is a challenging aim and
addresses deep issues about the nature of social interactions and social skills. Studying play
equipment as mediators in this domain adds an additional level of complexity. However, when
approaching this challenge from the bottom up, taking it step by step, this project will provide
evidence as to the possible role of play equipment in development of the social competence of
children with cerebral palsy, and can contribute into understanding how can one approaches to
creating play equipment for children with cerebral palsy, by providing design guidelines for such
equipment.
This paper outlines the context and the key concepts for designing play equipment for early years
children with cerebral palsy that encourage them to engage in open-ended play with other children
and foster their social development. To understand the peculiarities of children and to define criteria
and requirements for designing such play equipment, the discussion begins with the conception of
cerebral palsy and an outline of the current status of medical and social views on cerebral palsy. This
is followed by the discussion of the importance of the development of social competencies. Based
on this, the concept of play, and play equipment as a means to play are presented. The contextual
review finishes by outlining the theoretical concept and design criteria for creating a new model of
play equipment.
Medical and social views on cerebral palsy
As a basis for the discussion, it is necessary to consider what cerebral palsy is since cerebral palsy has
been conceptualised and defined in a number of ways.

The medical perspective of cerebral palsy focuses on problems of motor coordination, balance and
mobility, gross and fine movement, combined with cognitive and perceptual difficulties (Cogher et
al. 1992; Fox 2003; Farrell 2008; Hinchcliffe 2007). Such a view advocates professional physio-
therapeutic means of rehabilitation and development to compensate the impact of cerebral palsy
(Rozsahegyi 2014, p.7-53), which is easiest to observe and measure in all patients. But even if the
motor abilities of the patient increase, the psychological distress and social engagement may not
necessarily decrease (Parkes 2008, pp.405-413; Landsman 2006, pp.2670-2680; Landsman 2005,
pp.121-139).
While physio-therapeutic support of children remains dominant in the United Kingdom, Rozsahegyi
(2014, p.21) has argued that such an approach encourages only the child’s passive participation and
emphasizes the dysfunction, rather than its abilities. Hári and Ákos (1988), Hári (1997, pp.17-33) and
Sutton (2010, pp.xi-xiii), for instance, stress the significance of the emotional, social and cognitive
difficulties which the child faces as the result of physical disability and ways how these difficulties
may be overcome. Vygotsky (1978, p.79-91), Kozulin (1990, p.254), and Meadows (1993, pp.104-
126) believe that the development of the child arises from his/her attempts to deal with everyday
problems and from interactions with the child’s environment.
According to Vygotsky (1929, vol.2) children with disabilities are not limited by defects or less
developed in comparison to their peers without disability, but they develop differently. The
personality of a child with disability is something special and not the sum of any ‘defects’ or
‘limitations’. Moreover, any defect creates incentives for compensation (Stern 1923, p.145 cited in
Vygotsky 1929, vol.2). This does not only mean physical compensation, but also psychological. The
positive difference of disabled children is created not because of lack of certain functions that a child
with typical development has, but because this lack triggers a unique personal reaction to the
disability and a unique compensatory mechanism.
According to Vygotsky (1978, p.57) ‘every function in the child's development appears twice: first on
the social level and later on the individual level; first, between people and then inside the child’. For
example, initially a child’s gestures can be just motions without particular meaning. However, when
people respond or react to the gestures, they become meaningful. Then, after a child comprehends,
they can be used for social communication. A number of skills which can be developed with social
guidelines and collaboration are often wider than skills which can be developed alone (Fani and
Ghaemi 2011, p.1550). The social environment influences the developmental uniqueness (Scherbina
1916, p.10 cited in Vygotsky 1929, vol.2; Burklen 1924 cited in Vygotsky 1929, vol.2). Compensatory
processes are also socially determined and are directed on overcoming difficulties caused by the
defect and not directly on overcoming the defect which is often impossible. Rogoff (1990, pp.171-
188; 1998, p.686), based on the work of Vygotsky, emphasised the social nature of children’s
development. Further evidence that supports the idea that it is important for children with
disabilities to be integrated in society and not to be treated differently and to be isolated can be
found in a number of personal stories and experiences from people with cerebral palsy provided by
the “My Child” informational website (2016, http://www.cerebralpalsy.org/inspiration).
These stories indicate that social aspects in the development of disabled children play a vital role,
but are still addressed insufficiently. Despite a diversity of views and definitions, the effects of
cerebral palsy are clearly visible in children’s lives, shaping their experiences and participation in
social life (Rozsahegyi 2014, p.52). In the following, this paper therefore discusses the social
development of children in more detail.
Social competence for children with cerebral palsy
“Social competence refers to a child’s ability to get along with and relate to others” (AEDC 2011,
p.2). Being socially competent involves many elements, including the ability to regulate emotions,
developing knowledge and experience of social interactions and understanding social situations and

customs (Katz & McClellan, 1997). For young children, social skills include learning to be a friend, to
negotiate personal needs and deal with difficulties, to be assertive without being aggressive and to
relate effectively with adults and peers (Linke, 2011).
Social competence is interrelated with other aspects of development and should be seen as being
important in young children’s development as physical, emotional and cognitive development.
(Blandon et al. 2010, pp.737-748). The holistic approach understands children’s development to
consist of these inter-dependent dimensions. Children’s holistic learning and development ‘involves
all areas of development and embraces a view of the whole child developing in the context of family,
home and community’ (NCCA 2007, p.12). Based on the above, the progress in one area affects
progress in others and if one area of the development is strengthened we can anticipate
development in other areas. The possible difference between development of children with cerebral
palsy and children with typical development can be represented as follows (figure 1):
Figure 1 The possible difference between development of child with cerebral palsy and child with typical development
During the early years, social competence involves the ability to separate from parents and engage
with peers in shared play activities (2017, informational website “Children’s health”). Social
competence includes ‘knowing what is expected for social interactions, such as making eye contact,
taking turns, listening to others, not being aggressive; “reading” other people’s facial expressions
and gestures; recognizing emotions in others and oneself; and being able to communicate effectively
with others, including family members, peers, and adults’ (2016, informational website “Happy
Tots”).
As early years children are just learning to coordinate their social behaviour, their interactions are
often short and marked by frequent quarrel, and friendships are less stable than at later
developmental stages. During the early years, children are primarily focused on group acceptance
and having companions with whom they can play (AEDC 2011, p.2). Thereby, the development of
social relationships with peers is one of a major achievement of the early years for children
(Guralnick 2001, pp.3-35) and is the focus of this research.
Disabled children have broadly the same aspirations in social acceptance as non-disabled children
and the outcomes they would like to achieve are therefore similar. However, for many disabled
children and young people, there are fundamental outcomes that need to be achieved as a
foundation for others, including and especially, communication. For some children with cerebral
palsy acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary for interacting positively and successfully with
peers is a challenge (Odom 2005, p.2). Disabled children tend to be less accepted by peers, may
interact awkwardly and inappropriately in social situations and sometimes are socially incompetent.
Disabled children may have difficulties in forming and maintaining relationships because the
impairments caused by their disability limit or restrict them from participating in everyday activities

with their peers (Odom 2005, p.2). Some children with disabilities have difficulty in picking up social
cues that allow them to cooperate with others (e.g. following the rules of a game, taking turns).
Children with physical disabilities may find it hard to participate in games that other children play.
Some children may find it difficult to approach their peers to engage in social activities. Not all
children have the opportunity to meet and play with other children on a regular basis in nurseries
and play groups. But even in case when they surrounded by peers on a regular basic, their
interactions are limited by physical, emotional, or/and cognitive conditions. This potentially can lead
to poor social skills in communication with peers and later with schoolmates, while social
interactions with peers are one of the key areas of social development. Significant determining
factors of interpersonal communication are in the child’s physical environment (Strain et al. 1986,
p.29). The combination of these sorts of factors can lead children with a disability to be at risk of
developing mental health difficulties, such as low self-esteem, and mental health disorders, such as
depression. Many children thus would benefit from help with bridging their differences and finding
ways to learn from and enjoy the company of others.
Play as a tool for social competence development
For young children, a primary component of social competence is establishing effective interactions
with peers during play (Mathieson & Banerjee 2010, pp.9-20; Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser 2002, p.3;
Zigler & Bishop-Josef 2004, pp. 1- 13). Children, who are able to initiate play, enter ongoing play
groups, appropriately respond to peers initiations, and resolve conflicts with peers will be socially
competent in other aspects of peer relations (Howes & Matheson 1992, pp.961–974).
Play is the primary context in which children build their emergent social communicative skills, as well
as establish social competence (Mathieson & Banerjee, 2010). Using social communication in play
allows the child to satisfy their needs and desires, control the behaviour of others, participate in a
social exchange, express opinions or feelings, engage in fantasy, obtain information, and provide
information to others (Athanasiou, 2007; Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser 2002; Zigler& Bishop-Josef, 2004).
Social play involves a high level of reciprocity and cooperation to work well and children learn about
turn-taking, sharing, allowing others to go first, controlling emotions and putting the continuity of
the play before their own immediate needs and wishes (Kay 2007, p.10). All of these social
communicative behaviours coalesce to form the child's capacity for social competence.
Play is considered to be so important for children’s development, that it is a universal right for all
children under article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (2013, p.3).
Whilst playing, children can experience, respond and adapt to a wide variety of social situations
(Gleave and Cole-Hamilton 2012, pp.10-13). According to Ellis (1973), play fosters the behavioural
variability of the child. Conventionally and currently, leaders in theories of early childhood education
see play as fostering well-being, creative thinking skills, cognitive and social skills (Piaget 1962; Frost
& Sunderlin 1985).
To sum up, interactions with peers during play are the main component of the social competence of
early years children, and include a number of social skills. The main of these skills were defined and
presented in figure 2.

Figure 2 Social skills for early years children
Although most theories of play, such as the Psychoanalytic theories of Freud and Ericson, Cognitive
theories of Vygotsky, Sutton-Smith, Bryner, etc. (Mellou 1994, pp.91-100) assume that it is
beneficial, there is widespread debate regarding the magnitude of the benefits, and when these
benefits occur during development. Despite considerations of the magnitude and occurrence of
benefits of play, it is assumed generally to have advantages and provide areas for children’s social
growth. Through play between and among children, they learn how to get along with one another,
to be helpful and share, to understand the consequences of their own behaviour, etc. (Pellegrini
2000, pp.360-366). Quality play builds confidence and reinforces a child's desire to explore and learn.
Therefore, without knowing, during play, children participate fully in their own social development
(Isenberg & Jalongo 2006, pp.53-55).
Peculiarities of play for children with cerebral palsy
The play of children with disabilities often differs from that of their non-disabled peers. Play
repertoires can be more limited, and play may occur less frequently in children with developmental
disabilities (Li 1981, pp.121-126; Kaplan 1988, pp.137-161). Jennings et al. (1985, pp.162-169)
presents characteristics of play of children with physical disabilities as more solitary, with a limited
availability of materials. Thus, specific aspects of play may be related to the type and severity of the
disability (Kaplan-Sanoff et al. 1988, pp.137-161). Children with disabilities may experience physical,
cognitive, emotional, or social difficulties or a combination of these. They may need more support
with accessing the physical environment, to engage with toys and objects, encouragement to initiate
and sustain interactions. For example, they may lack appropriate physical surroundings to play in
and lack suitable playmates. These elements may conspire to foster an impression that children with
disabilities experience basic play deficits. In fact, this impression may be completely false since the
observed play differences could be environmental in origin (Hughes 2010, p.209), as children’s
development is directly linked to their ability to interact with their environment.
Children develop an understanding of themselves through their interactions with events and
materials outside themselves. Beckung and Hagberg (2002) have investigated activity limitations and
participation restrictions with gross and fine motor functions under the mobility, education and
social relationship in children with cerebral palsy. They indicated that the effect of a child’s
impairment or activity limitation on participation might vary depending on environmental factors
(Beckung and Hagberg 2002, pp.309-316). Environmental factors are defined as “the physical, social

and attitudinal environment in which people live and conduct their lives” (WHO 2007, p.16). While
the disability is present, environments have the ability to contribute or retard developmental
process. The environment should offer children opportunities to actively explore surroundings, make
decisions and follow through with their ideas, engage in different types of play, increase control over
their bodies (Hohmann and Weikart, 1995). Objects for play and access to peers, for example, are
essential components of major life situations of early years children.
Play equipment as a mean for engagement into play
The objects used in children’s play are no less important than the game itself. Children have their
own particular relationship with objects. Objects provide a means by which children can represent or
express their feelings, concerns, or preoccupying interests. For children an unfamiliar object tends to
set up a chain of exploration, familiarization, and eventual understanding, and often repeated
sequence that will eventually lead to more mature conceptions of the properties (shape, texture,
size) of the physical world (Garvey 1977, p.41). Objects represent a mediating element between a
child and his/her world. They also may help children to explore what they can do and what are their
limitations, thus contribute to develop self-image.
There is an enormous range of play equipment that a disabled child may require and use. It can be
toys, heuristic baskets, activity boards, play sets, multisensory rooms, etc. (internet stores eSpecial
Needs, Fat Brain Toys, Toys ’R’ Us). For a child with cerebral palsy, toys can cater to specific areas of
development or preference and can serve as a therapy aid (Hoffman et. al 2014).
However, finding play equipment that is appropriate for a child with cerebral palsy can be
challenging. Bandri (2016) defines two ways in which toys can be chosen for disabled children. One,
the toys have to be such that they are geared to suit the abilities that the child currently has, or, two,
they are such that they will move the child towards developing the abilities that he/she is working
towards. Shusterman (2011) says that the key criteria for selecting toys should be ease of
manipulation, minimal frustration, and something that attracts the child’s attention. Children who
have complex cerebral palsy may experience difficulties with producing the same range of motion,
muscle coordination, and dexterity that playing with play equipment designed for children with
typical development may require. Consequently, children who do not have the physical or cognitive
proficiency to play with the equipment provided may become bored or uninterested because of the
lack of success. So what might seem like a 'normal', 'simple enough' for children without
developmental difficulties, might pose obstacles for a child with this cerebral palsy.
Nielsen (1992) with the 'Little Room' for children with visual and complex needs and Goldschmied
and Jackson (1994) with the treasure baskets agree that it is important to give opportunities to
explore space and objects without interference. The 'Little Room', as well as some other
surroundings for children with complex needs is arranged in a way that the child can learn cause and
effect. A certain movement leads to a certain tactile or auditory experience, e.g. handling a certain
object can lead to production of different sound (Nielsen 1992). According to Gascoyne (2012, p.13),
an inclusive way of encouraging play and development is sensory-rich play equipment. Early years
children learn best and retain the most information when they engage their senses (Arnheim
1974 and Piaget & Inhelder 2000).
From the discussion above, some criteria of child friendly design which play equipment for children
with cerebral palsy should have can be defined, such as: appropriateness for developmental level,
focusing on strengths to minimize possible frustration, visual attractiveness, intuitiveness and
positive feedback to carry rewards to children, sensory, and ergonomic to correspond to the child’s
anthropometry (figure 3).

Figure 3 Criteria of play equipment for children with cerebral palsy
There are very limited options in the market when it comes to toys specifically designed for children
with cerebral palsy. The majority of the available examples have not been designed with considering
the challenges of such children but are rather intended for any child. Available toys/toy sets take
into account mainly physical abilities of children, but when designing for these children their social
needs also should be a concern for toy designers, beside their abilities (Hassenzahl et al. 2012, p.5).
Let us consider a few examples of existent equipment which perform social function and are
intended for use by two or more individuals simultaneously.
One of the examples for promoting social communication of children is a Seesaw (figure 4), that was
designed for children with cerebral palsy and supposed joint use for two children.
Figure 4 Seesaw for children with cerebral palsy. source: http://www.coroflot.com/kerenrelin/design-for-children
The positive side is that this Seesaw supposes cooperation and making eye contact with the other
child –two of the skills of the repertoire of social competence. It has assisting facilities designed
especially for children with cerebral palsy. However, there are also weaknesses, such as lack of
attractiveness and engagement for a child, and the inability to use it without the help of an adult.
Another example is the Gobug interactive toy (Katz and Rim 2011) (figure 5). It helps facilitate a
comprehensive social learning experience, not just for children but individuals of all ages. Two –
three children can play with this toy simultaneously together. Every user takes ownership of a single
controller. While each user points out his/her remote in a particular direction, the Gobug moves
around in the combined direction of active controllers. The more these controllers are in synchrony,
the faster the Gobug moves in the same guided direction. Gobug will activate only when 2 or
more controllers are in-hand. It helps users work together on verbal, physical and non-verbal
communicative levels. However, Gobug was designed for school age children with autism spectrum

disorder, and does not take into account physical needs and peculiarities of children with cerebral
palsy.
Figure 5 Gobug interactive toy. source: http://www.core77.com/posts/19262/autism-connects-gobug-interactive-toy-
19262
An example of a play tool that supposes sharing and develops certain social skills is an Art
installation - Montreal’s “Musical Swings”. The idea of the swings is that swinging sets off musical
notes, and together forms a melody (figure 6). So, the aim is cooperation and obtaining a common
result – a melody. This installation, however, does not require a joint use and can be utilized
independently. It is designed not for early years children with cerebral palsy, as they may need more
support with accessing these swings.
Figure 6 Montreal “Musical Swings”. source: https://www.mtl.org/en/what-to-do/festivals-and-events/21-balancoires-
montreal
Design objects can initiate, mediate or recreate social interactions. This can help reduce barriers to
become a part of community and offer opportunities to feel socially accepted and supported.
Theoretical concept of play equipment for social competence development
Play equipment in this study is treated as a tool for engaging children in social peer interactions by
means of an object. When designing play equipment for social development, it is practically
impossible to create a form, appearance, etc. that directly relates to functions of social
development. But if we consider design as an interface for meaning-making, the designer’s task
shifts to constructing semiotic content that can trigger cognitive and emotional processes of children

for the intended perception of the play equipment that can engage and thus develop specific social
skills (figure 2). In the context of this research this means encouraging aspiration to interact with the
designed objects and building social interactions through interacting with these objects (figure 7).
The triangular model of relationship between person-object-person was discussed by Niedderer
(2007, p.6). Such a design model links cognitive and emotional processes of communication with the
designed object. Play equipment should enable and guide children in creating understanding and
following behaviours that triggered by contact with the designed objects.
Figure 7 Interactions within a system ‘child – object – child’
Children connect certain meanings with certain carefully chosen material objects in response to the
immediate focus of their interest. This supports the concept that reality depends not only on the
intentions, which are embedded in the design, but the interpretation of children who experience
designed object. Moreover, the existing rules that govern play, but which are not inherent in the
object, may influence the perception of the object. Perception is usually situated within various
contexts of social processes and social relations where meaning is represented (Halliday 2005,
pp.59-82). Representations are context-bound. This may suggest the necessity of understanding the
context in which children interact with design objects and its influence on their meaning-making.
Also the ways of meaning-making determine specific social situations and social relations where this
meaning is presented.
Play equipment in this study is regarded as a part of the physical and social environment or as a tool
for two or more children to play with. This project looks on play equipment not only as triggers of
emotions and certain responses on them from children but focuses on encouraging social
interactions between children mediated by those objects. The concept of objects around
which social networks are form was put forward by Engeström (2005). He developed the theory of
‘object-centred sociality’. It describes the phenomenon whereby shared objects are the means by
which people connect to each other to form social relationships and networks. According to this
concept, links are created not just between people, but between people and objects, or around
objects. Social objects allow children to focus their attention on a third thing rather than on each
other, making interpersonal engagement more comfortable. Social objects in this case are central
points of interpersonal interaction. Play equipment should trigger interactions between children not
only around itself but by means of itself.
Design guidelines
To design for children play equipment that encourages their social development, design criteria
should be developed. Based on the analysis of related literature and existing examples of design
objects, it is possibly to identify characteristics which play equipment should have in the context of
social development.

Design criteria represented in the form of the scheme (figure 8) and have two levels. The first one
are indicators from the design position, and the second one - indicators of purpose.
Figure 8 Design guidelines
The levels are interrelated and implementation of criteria from the second level depends on the
realisation of the first level’s criteria. At the top of the scheme is play equipment which should have
a child-friendly design to be engaging – the first level of criteria. Child-friendly design means that
equipment should be intuitive, sensory, visually attractive, appropriate to developmental level, with
positive feedback, focused on strengths, ergonomic, and safe. Through child-friendly design, play
equipment can empower children to participate in open-ended group play, during which children are
led by the equipment to practice social skills and to foster self-confidence. Social competence
involves a range of skills and refers to the smooth sequential use of these skills in an effort to
establish an ongoing social interaction. Social skills are a collection of isolated and discrete learned
behaviours gender (Brownell 1990, p.840). The main social skills that early years children should
develop competence in include: sharing, cooperation, taking turns, helping, initiating interactions,
making contact with other children. These social skills, together with self-confidence, are criteria of
the second level.
Let us consider child-friendly design criteria in more details:
Play equipment should be intuitive. The concept of intuitive use of objects was studied by Blackler et
al. (2007, pp.4-24). She formulated a definition: “Intuitive use of products involves utilising
knowledge gained through other experience(s). Therefore, products that people use intuitively are
those with features they have encountered before. Intuitive interaction is fast and generally non-
conscious, so people may be unable to explain how they made decisions during intuitive
interaction”. Intuitive use will allow children to play with the equipment maximally independently
with minimal help and guidelines from adults. Intuitiveness is especially significant while designing
products for children with disabilities as it may allow them to feel more confident and convenient,
allow accept the product and minimize rejection. The whole products and its individual parts should
communicate and transfer a message, so that children as users know how the product should be

utilized. In this case children can focus on what they want to do instead of how, with minimal help
from adults.
Play equipment should be sensory. Children learn best and retain the most information when they
engage their senses. Sensory element criterion shows if the play object has characteristics that
appeal to any of the five senses (sight, touch, hearing, smell and taste) or give some sensory
response in case of cause and effect toys. Sensory-rich play is an inclusive way of encouraging
learning and development, with the hands-on approach appealing to children with different thinking
and learning styles (Gascoyne 2012, p.13). For children with special needs, the detail of colour,
texture, smell and lighting can have a much greater impact, depending on their disability. These
things can be a source of discomfort and pleasure, as well as information, entertainment, education
and reward (Bishop 2012). These characteristics are considered on the basis of lights, sounds,
texture, smell, and taste. Visual characteristics and children’s reactions to them were studied by
Savva (2003, pp.300-313) and Savva & Trimis (2009, pp.527-539). Object perception through the
touch was discussed by Klatzky & Lederman (2003). Bensafi et al. (2002), and Herz & Engen (1996,
pp.300-313) studied physiological effect of the smell.
Play equipment should be visually attractive. Visual perception is dominant among all the human
perceptual activities because it supplies first-hand sensory experience ( Myers 1989). Play
equipment with attractive visual image is more engaging. It can also contribute in keeping children’s
attention for longer.
Play equipment should be appropriate to developmental level. Play equipment intended for younger
than the target group children can be boring and uninterested, while equipment for older children
can be too complicated. This may lead to inability to play with the play equipment provided and to
loss of interest. Moreover, further it may lead to passivity in playing in general. This criterion is hard
in implementation because of developmental difference of children even in one age group. The way
to overcome this is designing open-ended equipment without stress on functional fixedness and
taking into account physical, cognitive, emotional and social peculiarities of children.
Play equipment should have positive feedback to motivate children to continue current task, reach
new results and try new activities. It can stimulate and prolong play, and raise self-confidence.
Play equipment should be focused on strengths rather than weaknesses. It is one of the main criteria
in order to shift the perception of disability as a limitation to a more positive way. Children see and
percept outer world in their own way and adapt to it depending on their abilities. It is necessary to
find specific approaches and put the right priorities which correspond to children’s needs and
wishes.
Play equipment should be ergonomic and correspond to child’s anthropometry (Goloborodko 2012,
pp.21-25, 58-73). Anthropometric data helps to evaluate the fit between children, play equipment
and physical environment. An understanding of this fit is critical to ensure that children can use play
equipment intended for them. It protects them from harm by ensuring that hazards are properly
guarded or placed out of reach.
Play equipment should be safe for reducing the potential for injuries. A list of essential safety
requirements are set out in the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011.
Conclusion
This paper outlines the context and the key concepts of the project regarding the development of
social competencies of children with cerebral palsy through play and engagement in play through
play equipment. To understand the peculiarities of the children and to define criteria and
requirements for designing play equipment, the discussion began with the conception of cerebral
palsy and an outline of the current status of medical and social views on cerebral palsy. This was
followed by the discussion of the importance of the development of social competencies. Based on

this, the paper discussed play and play equipment as tools for gaining necessary social skills. The
contextual review defined the theoretical concepts and outlined the design criteria for creating a
new model of play equipment. Future research will develop a number of design ideas through
ideation and brainstorming based on these criteria, from which one will be chosen for
implementation and intervention. This new design model is intended to empower and lead children
through the process of obtaining and practising social skills to be socially competent. It is also aimed
at changing social perceptions of cerebral palsy and shifting the accent from limitation to potential
and benefit of the children with cerebral palsy.
Referencing
Arnheim, R. (1974) Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. University of California Press,
Berkeley
Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) (2011) Guide to social competence. Resources for Queensland
early childhood education and care services, p.2
Bandri, R. (2016) Toys for Children with Cerebral Palsy [online]. Buzzle TM.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/toys-for-children-with-cerebral-palsy.html
Beckung E, Hagberg G. (2002) Neuroimpairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions in children
with cerebral palsy. Developmental medicine and child neurology, 44 (5), pp.309-16.
Bensafi, M., Rouby, C., Farget, V., Bertrand, B., Vigouroux, M., Holley, A. (2002) Autonomic Nervous System
Responses to Odours: the Role of Pleasantness and Arousal, Chemical Senses, 27(8), pp.703-709,
https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/27.8.703
Bishop, K. (2012) Designing learning environments for all children: Variety and richness [online]. Play for all.
[Accessed 4 May 2017]. Available at: https://laurenkateblake.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/designing-
learning-environments-for-all-children-variety-and-richness/
Blackler, A.L., Popovic, V., Mahar, D.P. (2007) Empirical investigations into intuitive interaction: a summary.
MMI-Interaktiv 13, pp. 4-24.
Blandon, A.Y., Calkins, S.D., Grimm, K.J., Keane, S.P., O'Brien, M. (2010) Testing a developmental cascade
model of emotional and social competence and early peer acceptance. Dev Psychopathol.,22(4), pp.737-
748. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000428.
Brownell, C. (1990) Peer social skills in toddlers: competences and constraints illustrated by same-age and
mixed-age interaction, Child development, 61, pp.838-848.
Children’s health (2017) Social competence [online]. Encyclopaedia of Children’s health. [Accessed 4
November 2017]. Available at: http://www.healthofchildren.com/S/Social-Competence.html
Cogher, L., Savage, E. and Smith, M.F. (1992) Cerebral palsy: the child and the young person. London: Chapman
& Hall Medical.
Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). Improving the Social Communication Skills of AtRisk Preschool
Children in a Play Context. Topics In Early Childhood Special Education, 22(1), p.3.
Ellis, J.J. (1973) Why People Play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Engeström, J. (2005) Why some social network services work and others don’t — Or: the case for object-
centered sociality [online]. Zengestrom. [Accessed 7 November 2016]. Available at:
http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-
the-case-for-object-centered-sociality.html
EYFS (2014) Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Setting the standards for learning,
development and care for children from birth to five. Department for Education (DfE), pp.7-13
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2
Fani, T., Ghaemi, F. (2011) Implications of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in Teacher
Education: ZPTD and Self-scaffolding, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, p.1550
Farrell, M. (2008) Educating special children” an introduction to provision for pupils with disabilities and
disorders. Abingdon: Routledge.
Frost, J.L. & Sunderlin, S. (1985) When Children Play. Association for Childhood Education International.
Wheaton, MD.
Gagnon, S. G. and Nagle, R. J. (2004), Relationships between peer interactive play and social competence in at-
risk preschool children. Psychol. Schs., 41, pp.173–189. doi:10.1002/pits.10120
Garvey, C. (1977) Play. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, p.41.

Gascoyne, S. (2012) Treasure Baskets And Beyond: Realizing The Potential Of Sensory-Rich Play. [online].
McGraw-Hill Education (UK), p.13. [Accessed 24 July 2016]. Available at:
http://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335246441.pdf
Gleave, J. and Cole-Hamilton, I. (2012) A world without play: A literature review [online]. Play England, pp.4-
13. [Accessed 2 August 2016]. Available at: http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/371031/a-world-
without-play-literature-review-2012.pdf
Goldschmied, E. and Jackson, S. (1994) People under Three: Young Children in Day Care. London: Routledge
Goldstein, J. (2012) Play in children’s development, health and wellbeing [online]. Brussels: Toy Industries of
Europe, pp.5-8. [Accessed 2 August 2016]. Available at: http://www.ornes.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Play-in-children-s-development-health-and-well-being-feb-2012.pdf
Goloborodko, V. (2012) Ергономiка для дизайнерiв, ХДАДМ [Ergonomic for designers], pp.21-25, 58-73
Guralnick ,M.J., Connor, R.T., Hammond, M.A., Gottman, J.M., Kinnish, K. (1996) Immediate effects of
mainstreamed settings on the social interactions and social integration of preschool children. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(4), pp.359-377.
Guralnick, M.J. (2001) A framework for change in early childhood inclusion. In M.J. Guralnick (Ed.) Early
childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Brookes, pp.3-35.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2005) On matter and meaning: the two realms of human experience. Linguistics and the
Human Sciences, vol.1(1), pp.59–82.
Hari, M., Akos, K. (1988) Conductive Education. London: Routledge, p. 159
Hassenzahl, M., Heidecker, S., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., & Hillmann, U. (2012). All you need is love: Current
strategies of mediating intimate relationships through technology. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.,
19(4), pp.1−19. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d66c/8b50134400c6eac0146927c23e1ade8efb71.pdf
Herz, R.S. & Engen, T. (1996) Odor memory: Review and analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3(3), pp.300-
313. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210754
Hinchcliffe, A. (2007) Children with cerebral palsy: a manual for therapists, parents and community workers.
2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Hoffman, A., Wang, K., Yeh, K., Schectman, T., Ferrise J. (2014) A comprehensive guide to finding the right toy
for your child with special needs [online]. A Friendship Circle EBook. [Accessed 17 March 2016] Available at:
http://www.friendshipcircle.org/blog/ebooks/special-needs-toy-guide/
Hohmann, M. and Weikart, D. (1995). Educating Young Children: Active Learning Practices for Preschool and
Child Care Programs [online]. USA: The High/Scope Press, pp.16-18 [Accessed 12 March 2016]. Available at:
http://trinitypreschoolsc.org/wp-
content/uploads/Active_Learning_The_Way_Children_Construct_Knowledge-1.pdf
Isenberg|, J.P. Jalongo, M. R. (2006) Creative Thinking and Arts-Based Learning: Preschool Through Fourth
Grade. Pearson, pp.53-55 https://www.education.com/reference/article/importance-play--social-
emotional/
Jennings, K.D., Connors, R.E., Stegman, C.E., Sankaranarayan, P., Mendelsohn, S. (1985) Mastery motivation in
young preschoolers: Effect of a physical handicap and implications for educational programming. Journal of
the Division for Early Childhood, 19(2), pp.162-169.
Katz, G., Rim, T. (2011) Autism Connects: Gobug Interactive Toy. CORE77, May 09. The design competition
Autism Connects winner. http://www.core77.com/posts/19262/autism-connects-gobug-interactive-toy-
19262
Katz, l. G., & McClellan, D. E. (1997). Fostering children's social competence: the teacher's role. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. In H.S. Han &K.M. Kemple (2006)
Components of Social Competence and Strategies of Support: Considering What to Teach and How. Early
Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 34(3), pp.241-243.
Kaplan-Snoff, M., Brewster, A., Stillwell, J., & Bergen, D. (1988). In D. Bergen (Ed.) Play: As a medium for
learning and development: A handbook of theory and practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, pp. 137-161.
Kay, J. (2007) Behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. Continuum Int.Publ.Group, p.2, 10.
Klatzky, R.L. and Lederman, S.J. (2003) Touch, in ed. by A.F. Healy, R. Proctor, I.B. Weine, Handbook of
Psychology: Experimental Psychology 4., Wiley, New York.
Kozulin, A. (1990) Vygotsky's psychoiogy: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
p.254.
Ladd, G. W. (2000). The fourth R: Relationships as risks and resources following children's transition to school.
American educational research association division e newsletter, 19(1), pp.7-11.
Landsman, G.H. (2005) Mothers and models of disability. The Journal of medical humanities, 26 (2-3), pp.121-
139 http://philpapers.org/rec/LANMAM-2

Landsman, G.H. (2006) What evidence, whose evidence?: Physical therapy in New York State’s clinical practice
guideline and in the lives of mothers of disabled children. Soc. Sci. Med., 62, pp.2670-2680
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953605006180NHS (The National Health Service of
the UK ) (2016) Cerebral Palsy [online]. [Accessed 27 January 2016]. Available at:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Cerebral-palsy/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Lave , J., Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Li, A.K. (1981) Play and the mentally retarded child. Mental Retardation, 19, pp.121-126.
Mathieson, K., &Banerjee, R. (2010). Preschool peer play: The beginnings of social competence. Educational &
Child Psychology, 27(1), pp.9-20.
McConnell, S. R., & Odom, S. L. (1999). A multimeasure performance-based assessment of social competence
in young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(2), 67-74.
Meadows, S. (1993) The child as thinker: The development and acquisition of cognition in childhood. London:
Routledge, pp.104-126.
Mellou, E. (1994) Olay Theories: A contemporary review, Early Child Development and Care, vol. 102(1), pp.91-
100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443941020107
Myers, J.F. (1989) The language of visual art: perception as a basis for design. Holt, Rinehart and Winston
NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) (2004) Towards a Framework for Early Learning
[online], p.12. [Accessed 2 April 2016]. Available at:
http://www.ncca.ie/en/Publications/Consultative_Documents/Towards_a_Framework_for_Early_Learning
_Executive_Summary.pdf
Nielsen, L. (1992) Space and Self: Active Learning by Means of the Little Room. Sikon
Niedderer, K. (2007). Designing Mindful Interaction: The Category of the Performative Object. Design Issues,
23 (1), pp. 3-17 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/desi.2007.23.1.3
Odom S.L. (2005) Peer-related Social Competence for Young Children with Disabilities [online]. Indiana
University, USA, p.2. [Accessed 2 August 2016]. Available at: http://www.child-
encyclopedia.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/en/829/peer-related-social-competence-for-young-
children-with-disabilities.pdf
Parkes, J., White-Koning, M., Dickinson, H., Thyen, U., Arnaud, C., Beckung, E., Colver, A. (2008) Psychological
problems in children with cerebral palsy: A cross-sectional European study. Journal Of Child Psychology And
Psychiatry 49, pp.405-413.
Parker, J.G., Asher, S.R. (1987) Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?
Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), pp.357-389.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and
victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, pp.360-366.
Piaget J., Inhelder B. (2000) The development of perception. Basic Books, New York
Piaget, J. (1962) Play, Dream and Imitation translated by C. Gattegno and F.M. Hodgson. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, p.149.
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp.171-188
Rogoff, B. (1998) Cognition as a collaborative process, In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th
ed.). New York: John Wylie, p.686
Rolfe, S. & Linke, P. (2011). Everyday learning about responding to the emotional needs of children. Deakin:
Early Childhood Australia.
Rozsahegyi, T. (2014) A bio-ecological case-study investigation into outlooks on the development and learning
of young children with cerebral palsy. University of Warwick, Centre for Education Studies, pp.21,47-53
Savva, A., (2003) ‘Young Pupils` Responses to Adult Works of Art’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol.
4, pp.300-313.
Savva, A., Trimis, E., (2009) ‘Artistic learning in relation to young children’s chorotopos: An in depth approach
to earlychildhood visual culture education’. Early Childhood Education, vol 36, pp.527-539.
Shusterman, L. (2011) Bikes, Toys/Gifts & Gadgets [online]. CP Daily Living Journal
http://cpdailyliving.com/developmental-toys/
Strain, P.S., Guralnick, M.J., Walker, H.M. (1986) Children’s social behaviour. Development, assessment, and
modification. Academic Press Inc. London, p.29
Sutton, A. (2010) General editor’s foreword. In J. Graham, C. McGuigan and G. Maguire (eds) Intelligent love.
Birmingham: Conductive Education Press.

Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 [online]. [Accessed 15 August 2017]. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1881/contents/made
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 57, 79-91.
Vygotsky, .L (1929) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol.2: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal
psychology and learning disabilities) (R.W.Rieber & A.S. Carton, Eds.). NY: Plenum Press. [online]. [Accessed
6 February 2016]. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1929/defectology/
Whitebread, D. (2012) The importance of play. [online]. Brussels: Toy Industries of Europe, pp.5-6 [Accessed 25
July 2016]. Available at: http://www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-
_the_importance_of_play.pdf
World Health Organization's (WHO) (2007) The World health report. Mental health: new understanding, new
hope. WHO, p.16-17.
Zigler, E., & Bishop-Josef, S. (2004). Play under siege: A historical overview. In E. F. Zigler, D.G. Singer, & S. J.
Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children's play: The roots of reading, pp.1-13. Washington, DC: Zero to Three/National
Centre for Infants, Toddlers and Families.