Introduction
This essay provides a reflective commentary on the application of Virginia Axline’s principles of non-directive play therapy during my first sand tray exercise as part of my play therapy studies. Axline’s approach, rooted in child-centred therapy, emphasises creating a safe, accepting environment where children can express themselves freely through play (Axline, 1947). The sand tray exercise, a widely used therapeutic tool, allows individuals to externalise internal experiences by manipulating objects in a confined space of sand, offering insights into their emotional world (Homeyer and Sweeney, 2017). In this context, the essay aims to explore how Axline’s eight core principles were applied during the session, reflecting on their relevance, challenges encountered, and the implications for my developing practice. The discussion will focus on key principles such as acceptance, permissiveness, and following the child’s lead, while critically evaluating their practical application. By doing so, I hope to demonstrate a sound understanding of play therapy concepts, acknowledge limitations in my approach, and consider how these reflections can inform future therapeutic work.
Context of Axline’s Principles and Sand Tray Therapy
Virginia Axline’s principles, outlined in her seminal work *Play Therapy* (1947), provide a framework for non-directive therapy where the therapist adopts a facilitative rather than directive role. These principles include developing a warm, friendly relationship with the child, accepting them unconditionally, and permitting them to express their feelings completely. Furthermore, Axline advocates for recognising and reflecting the child’s feelings, maintaining responsibility for self-direction with the child, and avoiding any hastening of the therapeutic process (Axline, 1947). Her approach aligns closely with Carl Rogers’ person-centred theory, emphasising empathy and congruence as pivotal to therapeutic growth (Rogers, 1951).
Sand tray therapy, meanwhile, serves as an expressive medium within play therapy, enabling clients to create symbolic representations of their inner experiences (Homeyer and Sweeney, 2017). The therapist observes and engages with the child’s creations without imposing interpretations, thus supporting Axline’s principle of non-interference. During my first sand tray exercise, conducted as a practical component of my coursework with a hypothetical child client, I sought to integrate Axline’s principles to foster a therapeutic environment conducive to self-expression. This initial experience provided a valuable opportunity to test theoretical knowledge against practical application, revealing both strengths and areas for improvement.
Application of Axline’s Principles in the Sand Tray Exercise
One of the most fundamental principles I aimed to embody was unconditional acceptance. Axline (1947) stresses that the therapist must accept the child exactly as they are, without judgement. During the session, I noticed the child’s hesitation to engage with certain objects in the tray, opting instead to repeatedly bury and unbury a small figurine. Rather than prompting them to explore other items or interpreting this action, I maintained a neutral stance, offering quiet presence and occasional affirmations like, “I see you’re working with that figure.” Reflecting on this, I believe I adhered to Axline’s call for acceptance; however, I occasionally felt an internal urge to intervene, wondering if my silence might be perceived as disengagement. This internal conflict highlights a limitation in my initial confidence as a therapist, suggesting a need for further practice in maintaining composure during ambiguous moments.
Another key principle I applied was permissiveness in the therapeutic space. Axline (1947) asserts that children must feel free to express their emotions fully, within the bounds of safety. In the sand tray exercise, I refrained from setting explicit rules about how the sand or objects should be used, allowing the child to explore at their own pace. For instance, when they chose to pour sand outside the tray, creating a mess, I resisted the instinct to correct this behaviour, focusing instead on ensuring safety. This approach, while aligned with Axline’s framework, posed practical challenges. Balancing permissiveness with maintaining a manageable environment required constant self-awareness, and I found myself questioning whether greater structure might have been beneficial. This tension reflects a broader debate within play therapy about the boundaries of permissiveness, particularly in structured settings like sand tray work (Landreth, 2012).
A third principle central to my reflection is following the child’s lead. Axline (1947) advocates for the therapist to respond to the child’s cues rather than directing the session. In the exercise, I made a conscious effort to mirror the child’s emotional tone, reflecting statements such as, “It looks like that figure is hiding now,” without imposing my own narrative. This non-directive stance allowed the child to guide the session, arguably fostering a sense of control and safety. However, I found it challenging to fully relinquish control, particularly when long silences occurred. My instinct to fill these gaps risked undermining the child’s autonomy, an area I must address in future sessions. Literature supports this concern, noting that novice therapists often struggle with silence due to discomfort or inexperience (Landreth, 2012).
Challenges and Limitations in Applying Axline’s Principles
While Axline’s principles provide a robust theoretical foundation, their application during the sand tray exercise revealed several challenges. One notable difficulty was maintaining a balance between non-directiveness and therapeutic presence. Although I aimed to follow the child’s lead, there were moments when I inadvertently offered subtle prompts, such as pointing out unused objects in the tray. This action, though well-intentioned, contradicted Axline’s emphasis on complete permissiveness (Axline, 1947). Reflecting on this, I recognise that my inexperience contributed to this lapse, underscoring the need for ongoing supervision and training to refine my skills. Research by Ray (2011) suggests that non-directive approaches require significant practice to internalise, particularly for trainees accustomed to more structured interactions.
Moreover, I encountered difficulty in consistently reflecting the child’s feelings, another of Axline’s core principles. While I attempted to acknowledge visible emotions through statements like, “You seem focused on that part of the tray,” I often struggled to identify underlying emotions beyond surface-level observations. This limitation may have hindered the depth of emotional exploration during the session. Homeyer and Sweeney (2017) argue that sand tray therapy often reveals complex, symbolic content that novice therapists may overlook, a perspective that resonates with my experience. Addressing this gap will require further study of symbolic interpretation and enhanced emotional attunement in practice.
Implications for Future Practice
Reflecting on this initial sand tray exercise, several implications emerge for my developing practice as a play therapist. Firstly, I must cultivate greater comfort with silence and ambiguity, trusting in the therapeutic process as Axline (1947) advises. Engaging in role-play scenarios or peer supervision could help build this confidence, allowing me to refine my ability to sit with discomfort without intervening prematurely. Secondly, I aim to deepen my understanding of symbolic content in sand tray therapy by consulting specialised texts and attending workshops. This knowledge will enhance my capacity to reflect feelings accurately and support clients in exploring their inner worlds.
Additionally, this reflection highlights the importance of self-awareness in therapeutic work. My tendency to subtly direct the session, even minimally, suggests underlying assumptions or anxieties that could impact the therapeutic relationship. Regular reflective journaling and discussions with supervisors will be crucial in identifying and addressing these biases. Finally, while Axline’s principles provided a valuable framework, I must remain open to integrating complementary approaches where appropriate, such as elements of directive play therapy, to meet diverse client needs (Landreth, 2012). This balanced approach will ensure flexibility while maintaining fidelity to child-centred values.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this reflective commentary has explored the application of Virginia Axline’s principles during my first sand tray exercise in play therapy studies. Key principles such as unconditional acceptance, permissiveness, and following the child’s lead were central to the session, though their practical implementation revealed challenges, including discomfort with silence and difficulty reflecting deeper emotions. While my adherence to Axline’s framework demonstrated a sound understanding of non-directive play therapy, critical reflection highlighted limitations in my confidence and interpretive skills, aligning with typical challenges faced by novice therapists (Ray, 2011). These insights underscore the importance of ongoing training, supervision, and self-reflection in developing therapeutic competence. Ultimately, this experience has reinforced the value of Axline’s principles as a foundation for creating a safe, expressive space for clients, while also prompting me to consider how best to adapt and refine my approach in future practice. By addressing identified gaps, I hope to build a more nuanced, effective therapeutic presence that supports children in their journey of self-expression and healing.
References
- Axline, V. M. (1947) Play Therapy: The Inner Dynamics of Childhood. Houghton Mifflin.
- Homeyer, L. E. and Sweeney, D. S. (2017) Sandtray Therapy: A Practical Manual. 3rd edn. Routledge.
- Landreth, G. L. (2012) Play Therapy: The Art of the Relationship. 3rd edn. Routledge.
- Ray, D. C. (2011) Advanced Play Therapy: Essential Conditions, Knowledge, and Skills for Child Practice. Routledge.
- Rogers, C. R. (1951) Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Houghton Mifflin.
(Note: The word count for this essay, including references, is approximately 1520 words, meeting the specified requirement of at least 1500 words.)
