Play-Based Learning in Kindergarten and the Role of the Teacher Amid Play
Introduction
Even though play is something that happens naturally throughout infancy, studies on early childhood development seldom included it until the 20th century (Farné 2005). The theoretical works of Vygotsky have served as a major source of inspiration for much of the play research in developmental psychology (1978). He stated that children exert control over their own activities, set suitable tasks for themselves, and construct their own “zone of proximal development” during play, when it is spontaneous and child-initiated, within which learning is most effectively increased. According to Karpov (2005), play is an important aspect in children’s development of self-regulation since it forces youngsters to control their own behavior. For instance, many studies have shown that kids can execute activities at considerably greater levels while they are playing than when they are not. Researchers are still studying play and how it affects young children’s development, as well as how to employ play in the classroom to help students acquire academic material (Roskos and Christie 2011).
Although it is clear from the study that play is important in kindergarten classes, there are discrepancies in this viewpoint when we think about how play affects children’s learning. For instance, some promote the use of just child-directed free play, while others promote the use of play as a tool in kindergarten kids’ general development (Bergen 2009; Ginsburg 2007). According to Eberle (2014), some people see play as important for children’ social and personal development in kindergarten, while others talk about how it helps kids improve their academic abilities (Riley and Jones 2010).
Play is crucial for children’s development, according to many experts and politicians, however these assertions are not without disagreement. By saying that “current research does not support strong causal assertions about the special relevance of pretend play for development,” Lillard and colleagues, for instance, question the function of pretend play in the development of both the social and emotional and intellectual domains (2013, p. 1). Despite these difficulties, play-based learning pedagogies are required in school curriculum while still maintaining high academic standards thanks to studies on the benefits of play.
In addition, Puteh and Ali (2013) consider how it is difficult to provide precise advice for educators to promote a play-based approach in kindergarten classrooms in light of the rising expectations on academic abilities due to the absence of a clear definition of play. The application of play-based learning in classrooms is further complicated by the fact that various instructors see play differently in practice.
Research Issue
According to Jenvey and Jenvey (2002), Martlew, Stephen, and Ellis (2011), Whitebread and O’Sullivan (2012), instructors today must achieve a balance between needed academic learning and developmentally appropriate play-based pedagogical techniques. Research often discusses how play helps children’s growth and academic learning. However, it may be difficult for instructors to decide how to effectively incorporate play-based pedagogies into their classrooms because of contradictions in various viewpoints on the function of play in educational contexts. As a result, kindergarten educators must balance traditional developmental programming with modern academic expectations.
In Canada, play-based learning is not yet explicitly and consistently defined in research or policy texts. Additionally, there is a dearth of reliable study results describing how play might be used to enhance academic abilities (Lillard et al. 2013). Despite these discrepancies in definitions and suggested implementations of play-based learning, British Columbia’s government started the switch to full-day kindergarten in 2010, following the example of other Canadian jurisdictions. This educational approach is required under the existing policy, but instructors must decide how to best put this requirement into effect.
The Ministry of Education in British Columbia produced a new kindergarten curriculum paper to coincide with this transition to a full-day framework. While still upholding the high academic standards of its predecessors, this new document varies from the previous one in that it places a strong focus on the use of play-based learning in kindergarten classrooms. According to the text, play is a method of learning that draws on students’ “natural curiosity” and creative energy and is backed by the conviction that play and academic growth are not incompatible. The paper continues by examining the different forms play may take in the classroom (such as constructive play), the use of play via an inquiry lens, and the settings in which play-based learning can be used in the real world. The text does not, however, provide instructors an operationalized definition of play-based learning that specifically explains how it may enhance both social and intellectual growth via play.
In order to address the lack of agreement on the definition of play-based learning, inconsistent teacher perspectives on play, and how these discrepancies in perspectives about play complicate the implementation of play-based learning in kindergarten classrooms in British Columbia, Canada, this literature review will adopt a uniquely Canadian perspective.
Play Definition
Even though most people would agree that play is good for early schooling, it may be challenging to understand what play really is. Several people who make an effort to define play claim that it has many different characteristics rather than just one (Smith and Vollstedt 1985; Jenvey and Jenvey 2002).
Eberle (2014) defined play as a deliberate activity inspired by emotional experiences and pleasure and identified six fundamental components of play. This notion of play as a result of a person’s temperament is one that is universally accepted (Pui-Wah and Stimpson 2004; Jenvey and Jenvey 2002). Others have thought about the advantages of play from a neurological standpoint, highlighting the advantages of sensory and neurotransmitter stimulation, its relationship to brain growth and activity, and its role in general cognitive development (Rushton, Juola-Rushton, and Larkin 2010; Pellis, Pellis, and Himmler 2014).
The two theories of cognitive development that predominate in early childhood education—and Piaget’s Vygotsky’s—describe the link between play and cognitive development in distinct ways. Play involves assimilation, or the child’s attempts to make environmental cues fit his or her own conceptions, according to Piaget (1962). According to the Piagetian idea, play does not always lead to the development of new cognitive structures. Play, according to Piaget, is simply for fun, and although it gives kids a chance to practice what they’ve already learned, it doesn’t always lead to their picking up new skills. In other words, the play does not necessary teach the kid anything new, but it does reflect what the youngster already knows. Play, according to this theory, “reflects nascent symbolic development, but contributes nothing to it” (Johnsen & Christie, 1986, p. 51).
In contrast, according to Vygotskian philosophy, play actually promotes cognitive growth. Children learn new things in addition to practicing what they already know. Vandenberg (1986) makes the observation that play “not so much reflects mind (as Piaget proposes) as it produces thought” while analyzing Vygotsky’s thesis (p. 21). However, it is possible to see both play theories in action while seeing kids playing in various contexts. Piaget’s theory of play would be supported, for instance, if a kid were to act out a scenario in the dramatic center that was based on past knowledge. By working out how two puzzle pieces fit together, another youngster might create new knowledge via her play, corroborating Vygotsky’s idea. It is obvious that play has a crucial function in the kindergarten classroom, whether children are applying what they have learned in previous contexts or are creating new information. However, as researchers work to define play concretely through various theoretical lenses, those working in education are left with conflicting definitions that can make it difficult for them to comprehend the significance of play in students’ development and, consequently, to implement play-based programs.
The Playing Field for Teachers
The role of the instructor during play, especially in the context of classroom play-based learning, is an often contested subject in the debate of play-based learning. Many people have discovered that play-based learning is most successful when an adult is present to assist and scaffold learning (Martlew, Stephen, and Ellis 2011). Bennett, Wood, and Rogers’ (1997) discovery that pupils improved academically when instructors were participating in the play lends credence to this education-focused viewpoint. Bodrova (2008) discovered that teachers’ scaffolding during play results in greater quality learning. On the other hand, other academics argue against teacher engagement, claiming that instructors’ underlying views and learning objectives may inadvertently steer kids’ play away from a truly child-centered situation (Goouch 2008).
Play-based learning is implemented in classrooms in a variety of ways, but how instructors define their part in the play has some bearing on how and where it is applied (Howard 2010). Researchers have investigated how instructors utilize play, what roles they play within it, and how they see how their participation impacts students’ learning in light of this (Sherwood, and Reifel 2013; Pyle, and Bigelow 2015). While many kindergarten instructors are in favor of play-based learning, there is a lack of consistency and clarity in how it is carried out. For instance, Pui-Wah and Stimpson (2004) discovered that while instructors claimed to include play in their classrooms, their actual practices did not correspond to authentic play practices. This was based on their investigation of teachers’ understanding of play-based learning. Instead, play in their classrooms was restricted to certain settings and materials and was employed independently of academic instruction.
This discrepancy between instructors’ beliefs and actions may be traced in part to the issue raised above, namely the dispute over an adequate definition of play. Martlew, Stephen, and Ellis (2011) reached the same findings in their study of teachers’ understanding of play-based pedagogy: a lack of coherence in teachers’ conceptions of play-based learning transferred into teachers’ misunderstandings of their role during play. A proposed explanation for this lack of cohesion is that those who employ play-based methods for both research and instruction frequently approach the subject from various investigative vantage points, such as cognitive, emotional, or pedagogic, which has an impact on the weight given to various play elements (Howard 2010).
Additionally, these bodies of literature suggest various responsibilities for instructors, even though research has shown support for both the development of academic abilities and the development of social and emotional skills via play. For instance, studies showing the link between play and learning academic abilities place a strong emphasis on the teacher’s participation in this kind of play. Researchers have shown that play may aid in the acquisition of academic abilities when teachers give help, either by constructing an environment or by offering direct instruction while the child is playing (Skolnick Weisberg, Zosh, Hirsh-Pasek, and Michnick Golinkoff 2013). For instance, when teachers actively participate in children’s play by taking on a significant role (for instance, the teacher playing the patient and the student the doctor), the teacher can elaborate and extend shared activities by drawing students’ attention to specific objects and contributing to the conversation, improving vocabulary learning (Van Oers and Duijkers 2013). Additional studies show that when instructors engage kids in play and direct their focus to environmental print, pupil reading of that environmental print rises (Vukelich 1994). Research on the development of social and emotional skills frequently emphasizes the importance of giving children the opportunity to direct their own play, minimising the teacher’s role. This is in contrast to research on the learning of academic skills in play-based contexts, which describes the role of teachers in supporting and guiding academic learning during play (e.g., Skolnick Weisburg et al. 2013). (Elias and Berk 2002; Howard 2010; Stipek et al. 1995). In this kind of children’s play, the teacher is often seen as more of a facilitator. For instance, Goouch (2008) underlines the value of instructors letting kids choose the goals for playtime and restraining themselves from sabotaging their good intentions by enforcing compulsory curriculum requirements. According to some experts, instructors should keep a tight eye on kids during playtimes to encourage healthy social relationships and motor skills in addition to evaluation goals. Children should make all of the decisions during play, including what to play, where to play, who will play what part, and how to move the play forward. However, on occasion, some kids may need adult support in order to join a playgroup, alter their conduct, or resolve a conflict. The instructor will be able to make decisions about when to provide support and in what capacity via careful observation.
The difficulties instructors have when integrating play into classroom settings are exacerbated by the different teaching responsibilities in play-based situations. Teachers must decide how to encourage different types of play in the classroom and how to create environments that may promote productive play, but they must also decide how much they will participate in these playful environments themselves.
