A theory is stronger if it accurately reflects the facts of the real world
It is a fact that play, is very common across all living beings. The reason why this is the case may not be clear but it is undisputed that it is part and parcel of the development of all animal species. But there can never be a conclusive assumption that pretend play is responsible for the outcomes seen in children. In a nutshell, there are a lot of other things that can be used in analyzing the reason behind any developmental outcome.
Standard 2
A theory is stronger if it is stated in a way that makes it clearly understandable to anyone who is reasonably
Yes this fact is true. In regard to the journal in question, the central focus is discussing the relationship between play and child development. There is a clear and strong opposition to this theory as disclosed by Lillard et al.
Standard 3
A theory is stronger if it not only explains what past events occurred but also accurately predicts future events.
Yes. A theory should be able to connect the past and the future. The outcomes of past studies do not show clearly how specific development milestones and even end result are directly related to a given type of play or any kind of play for that matter.
Standard 4
A theory is stronger if it offers practical guidance in solving problems
No. even if it does not offer the practical guidance, it should be able to solve problems. A theory should provide answers to issues or problems and give a guideline on how to approach these problems in the future. The relationship between play and development can’t lead to the same outcomes each time.
Standard 5
A theory is stronger if it is internally consistent
Yes. A theory should be consistent at all costs otherwise if it is doubted it can easily be dismissed all together.
Work Cited
Skolnick, Deena, Hirshi- Pasek, Kathy & Michnick, Roberta. Embracing Complexity: Rethinking the Relation Between Play and Learning: Comment on Lillard et al. (2013) PDF
