ABSTRACT

This article aims to summarise research on this topic; analyse, reflect on and discuss earlier research on play and learning using a few empirical examples; and determine what constitutes an appropriate educational approach concerning war and weapon within an early childhood education and care (ECEC) setting. This is done by putting feminist theories on masculinity (Connell, 2005; Kimmel, 2008) beside social semiotic multimodal theories of meaning making and learning in order to try to understand the aspects in focus (Kress, 2010, Kress & Bezemer, 2016). The research question has been: How can boys’ creation and use of war toys and weapon play be understood in terms of meaning-making in an ECE setting? The boys in the two empirical examples that are presented in the article can be said to use elements of learning; they talk, discuss, explain, argue and create a play, around guns and cookery. One of the themes is acknowledged by the ECE institution, one of the themes not. How the modes are displayed can be related to the gender of the children whereas boys displaying war toys and weapon games don’t seem to fit into the context. Key words: war toys, war play, meaning making, early childhood education, multimodality, masculinity, gender

摘要

本文旨在总结对该主题的研究；使用一些实证例子分析、反思和讨论早期关于游戏和学习的研究；并确定在幼儿教育和护理 (ECEC) 环境中什么构成了有关战争和武器的适当教育方法。这是通过将关于男性气质的女权主义理论 (Connell, 2005 ; Kimmel, 2008 ) 放在意义创造和学习的社会符号学多模态理论旁边来完成的，以试图理解关注的方面 (Kress, 2010 , Kress & Bezemer, 2016）。研究问题是：如何在 ECE 环境中从意义建构的角度来理解男孩对战争玩具和武器游戏的创造和使用？文中给出的两个实证例子中的男生可以说是运用了学习的要素；他们围绕枪支和烹饪进行交谈、讨论、解释、争论并创作出一出戏。其中一个主题得到了 ECE 机构的认可，但其中一个主题却没有。模式的显示方式可能与孩子的性别有关，而男孩展示战争玩具和武器游戏似乎不适合上下文。关键词: 战争玩具, 战争游戏, 意义建构, 幼儿教育, 多模态, 男子气概, 性别