Children learn effectively by modelling, by rote and via direct teaching, so why bother with play at all? We instinctively know that play is useful, but why? What makes it so special? What separates it from other modes of action? Moyles (1989) says it is the internal, affective quality of play that is important in development: enthusiasm, motivation, willingness to engage. Dewey (1933) made the distinction between this internal, affective quality and play itself by distinguishing between playfulness and play - 'the former is an attitude of mind, the latter is an outward manifestation of this attitude' (p210).
Playfulness also implies freedom and flexibility, both important for learning. Concentrating on playfulness, as an attitude of mind, rather than play, the outward act, may be the most helpful way yet of thinking about this elusive concept and of providing a theoretical basis for implementing a play-based curriculum. So, how do we get to playfulness?
Most definitions of play are based on an adult view of the observable act of play - what play looks like to others. We argue that this does not get to the heart of playfulness or the characteristics of play that separate it from other modes of action.
Our proposition is that the important thing about play is not what it looks like, but, rather, what it means to approach a task as play. To conceptualise play in this way, it is necessary to obtain a definition of play from the players themselves - the children.
This is in opposition to the long-held view that children do not distinguish between play and work - but if we do listen to children, then hopefully we get to understand not only what play looks like, but also what it feels like. We can begin to learn what play means to children, what determines whether an activity is or is not play and determine whether different behaviours are associated with play or non-play states.
The few studies that have been conducted looking at children's views of play all conclude that children distinguish between play and work and that they do so using cues, both emotional and environmental.
Emotional cues include the amount of choice a child has in an activity, whether the activity is voluntary or not and how easy it is. Environmental cues include where the activity takes place, whether or not an adult is involved or evaluates what the child has done and the physical nature of the activity (see table below).
Children do view certain activities as play and others as work - for example, activities occurring outside involving construction or role-play are generally seen as play, while activities involving reading, writing and being taught skills are viewed as work. However, children use the above cues to determine how play-like an activity is and how playfully they approach it: for example, a construction activity may be viewed as work-like if it occurs at a table and play-like if it occurs on the floor. Children use cues to break down the play-work divide and define a play-work continuum, as evidenced by the authors: when we ask children to sort photographs into play and not-play activities, they often ask for a third category to go in the middle - 'a bit play'.
It has also been shown that children make play-work distinctions based on classroom experience, with children in more structured settings making greater play-work distinctions (Howard, 2002). Essentially, if children mainly experience play on the floor and without adult presence, these are the cues they will use to define play and non-play situations. Choice is clearly important to children. Positive affect however is ambiguous; play is fun, but work can be as well. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the play-work distinction changes with age and becomes more defined as children get older (Parker, 2007).
AFFECTIVE LEARNING
We suggest that it is the affective quality of play, namely playfulness, which supports learning. But is there evidence to back this? A small number of studies and ongoing research would suggest that there is (Thomas et al, 2006; Radcliffe, 2007; McInnes et al, 2009). In these studies, some of the cues children use to differentiate between play and not-play activities have been altered in a test to see if playful (on the floor, adult-proximal, voluntary) and formal (at a table, adult present, compulsory) practice conditions make any difference to children's learning and behaviour.
Children were allocated to one of the practice conditions and then involved in a familiar problem-solving task in a four-stage procedure: pre-test, practice, post-test and delayed post-test. Results from these studies show that when children see the practice condition as play, they perform better and behave differently to children in the formal practice condition. Importantly, while the task that children are asked to do remains the same, when they practise it playfully, they do better. They exhibit significantly improved performance in the time taken to complete the task. They show greater involvement in the activity, as measured by the Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers et al, 1994). They also exhibit greater motivation - as shown by behaviours such as leaning towards the puzzle, smiling and greater focus on the activity - and employ more purposeful problem-solving, using less repetitive behaviours and trying out fresh ways to solve the problem. The same activity can be approached as play or not-play and approaching an activity as play makes a positive difference.
Overall, it would seem that listening to children and gaining insight into their conceptualisation of play is beneficial. Children use cues to define play and altering these cues impacts on children's performance and behaviour during a task. The cues children use to define play depend on their experiences and so it is important for practitioners to find out what the children in their class see as play and why. Understanding this and working with it enables practitioners to develop a new pedagogy of play (Rogers and Evans, 2008). This pedagogy is one that has an alternative theoretical base and is co-constructed with, and for, children. This new conceptualisation frees practitioners from the constraints of providing activities that look like play (Wood and Attfield, 2005) and empowers them to inject playfulness into a variety of their classroom practices. For example, if a teacher finds that the children in their class define play as being something that doesn't involve an adult, they might try to get involved in children's play more frequently, so that children no longer use this as a defining cue. Similarly, if activities at the table are considered less play-like, altering where activities take place may reduce the use of this cue and ensure playfulness is maximised across all classroom locations.
Using this research as a guide, practitioners are able to listen to children and understand cues children use to define play in their own settings. Practitioners can work with children to co-construct an environment that reduces cue distinctions, blurs boundaries between play and not-play and engenders greater playfulness. From this new perspective of play, practitioners can co-construct a play-based curriculum that facilitates playfulness in approach and attitude by both children and adults.
Implications for pedagogy: what might you reflect on now?
1. What do I understand about play?
2. How does my understanding impact on my practice?
3. What does this say about how I value play?
4. How does this influence the children's understanding of play?
5. What cues do children use to define play?
This is an edited extract of 'Thinking through the challenge of a play-based curriculum' by Justine Howard and Karen McInnes, Chapter 2 in Thinking about Play (see below). Justine Howard is senior lecturer in the school of human and health science, Swansea University. Karen McInnes is a psychology tutor in the faculty of humanities and social science, University of Glamorgan.
CUES CHILDREN USE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PLAY AND WORK ACTIVITIES
PLAY
Emotional cues Environmental cues
Voluntary On the floor
Under child's control Lacks adult involvement
Easy No adult evaluation
Fun Can be continued
- focus on the process
Physical
WORK
Emotional cues Environmental cues
Compulsory At a table
Under adult control Includes adult involvement
Hard Includes adult evaluation
Can be fun Has to finish
- focus on product
Not physical
THINKING ABOUT PLAY
Thinking about Play: Developing a reflective approach (Open University Press, £21.99) is an excellent collection of broad-ranging chapters by academics and experienced early years practitioners on the subject of play and its implications for practice. Edited by Janet Moyles, professor emeritus at Anglia Ruskin University, it aims to support early years students and practitioners in developing their own thinking, ideologies and pedagogies.
Chapter themes include: play as an emotional process; a constructivist approach to literacy learning; children's symbolic play in the digital age; and transition.
Highly informative and accessible, each chapter includes an abstract, questions for reflection and follow-up ideas that can be used for CPD and training.
To order a copy for only £17.60, please visit www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9780335241088. The Book Depository is offering 20 per cent off until 30 September 2010, plus free P&P.
