BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Eliciting Children’s Perceptions of Play and Exploiting Playfulness to Maximise Learning
in the Early Years Classroom
Authors
Justine Howard (University of Glamorgan)
Wynford Bellin (University of Wales Cardiff)
Val Rees (University of Wales College of Medicine)
Correspondence details for first author
Justine Howard
Humanities and Social Science
University of Glamorgan
Pontypridd
Mid Glamorgan
CF37 1DL
United Kingdom
01443 482358 (direct line)
jlhoward@glam.ac.uk
1
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Eliciting Children’s Perceptions of Play and Exploiting Playfulness to Maximise Learning
in the Early Years Classroom
Abstract
It is widely accepted that play makes a positive contribution to children’s development,
particularly in the early years. Much of the developmental potential unique to play regards
intrinsic or within child qualities such as motivation, enthusiasm, willingness to participate and
self-preservation. Play is said to capture the attention of young children (Wood 1986), children
are more enthusiastic about participation (King 1979) and are free from the fear of failure in the
safe learning environment play provides (Moyles 1989). These qualities make an important
contribution to learning outcomes. If we accept the importance of these qualities, then it would
seem important to consider what children consider playful, particularly if we are to motivate
children to learn through activities they themselves perceive to be play (Thomas 1999). This is
particularly important when the act of play is distinguished from the internal qualities of
playfulness. This paper summarises research that has focused on children’s perceptions of play.
It suggests that children’s perceptions are related to experience. The characteristics used by
children to define play are considered from an educational perspective, where practitioners have
the opportunity to manipulate perceptions through the experiences they provide. The significance
of understanding children’s perceptions for exploiting playfulness is discussed.
2
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Introduction
A devotion to the study of children’s play has persisted for well over three decades. Researching
this seemingly simple activity has proven to be a far from simple task. With its many forms and
guises, defining play has and still appears to be, particularly problematic. Definitions have
focused on categorisation, criteria or continuum. Whilst these have illuminated the complexity of
play it is arguable as to whether or not they have drawn us any closer to reaching a definitive or
generic definition (Wood and Attfield 1996). The benefits of providing an operational definition
of play are also debated. From a research or psychological perspective such a definition may be
useful to ensure that all researchers are talking about the same thing (Garvey 1990). From a
pedagogical perspective however, all encompassing definitions may lead to straight-jacketing,
where practitioners strive to provide classroom experiences which correspond to defining criteria
(Wood and Attfield 1998). Activities which look like play.
Difficulties in defining play appear to stem from a failure to distinguish the act of play from the
construct of playfulness. The proposition that behavioural characteristics can be used to define
play, as in criteria approaches (e.g. Krasnor and Pepler 1980; Rubin et al. 1983) leads to an
either/or situation where an activity is categorised as play or not play, failing to consider varying
degrees of play. Whilst continuum approaches have addressed this issue by suggesting that the
more characteristics present, the more pure the play becomes (Pellegrini 1991), the use of
defining characteristics suggests that these behaviours are specific to play and that playfulness
cannot permeate any other activity. The limitations of defining play in this way are clear in the
play-work dichotomy. If a distinction were drawn between play and playfulness, then this
dichotomy would be less visible as feelings of playfulness could permeate both play and work.
3
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Guha (1988) raises the important issue of context, highlighting a further limitation of definitions
that rely on characteristics. Whilst an activity may have the defining characteristics to achieve
play status, the same activity on a different day or in a different location may take on board a
different meaning to the player (the example provided by Guha is that of the professional
footballer in comparison to the person who plays football on a Saturday afternoon). Guha
suggests that in this situation the activity loses its play status as work like properties increase.
However this is not to say that a sense of playfulness may not be retained by the player.
It would appear then, that problems in defining play arise when play and playfulness are
considered as one. Whilst certain activities may appear more play-like, we can never be sure
whether the individual is feeling playful. Playfulness would appear to be an internalised
construct that develops over time as a result of experience and interaction. We suggest that it is a
failure to distinguish these two things that prevents the playfulness of play from being fully
exploited in the early years. Play is an act defined by observable characteristics. The construct of
playfulness comprises the internal qualities brought to the activity by the players themselves.
Namely, how the player feels about the activity. So, whilst it may be possible to define or label
certain activities as play in respect of the characteristics they display, the development that
occurs during the activity is dependent on the perceptions of the player.
It is this internal feeling of playfulness that can make such a valuable contribution to
development, particularly in an educational context. On this premise, to understand the nature of
playfulness, it is necessary to understand how players perceive their activities.
4
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Understanding children’s perceptions
Wiltz and Klein (2001) maintain that whilst there has been a wealth of research directed towards
understanding the influence of early child-care experiences on development, little is known
about how children themselves perceive their environments. There is also minimal insight into
the way in which children’s perceptions of play and subsequent concepts of playfulness develop,
and are influenced by experience. Considering that much of the literature surrounding play
comes from a developmental or educational perspective, in particular addressing how play
contributes to child development, then it appears curious that such little time has been spent
eliciting the perceptions of children themselves. As is stated by Woodhead and Faulkner (2000),
much of the research into children’s play is observational, involving but not necessarily engaging
children. Whilst observational techniques provide much information into the nature of children’s
play, and allow us to make inferences about development and involvement in activities, they do
not tell us about children’s perceptions and do not therefore allow us to make judgements about
individual definitions of playfulness. This is particularly relevant where the distinction between
the observable act of play is distinguished from playful intention.
So why is it important to understand children’s perceptions of play and developing concept of
playfulness? Rudduck, Day and Wallace (1997) argue that to improve school life, it is vital that
children’s descriptions of their experiences are considered. There has been an increasing concern
that the failure to actively engage children in research designed to elicit their own perceptions,
has led to suppositions about children’s experiences. For example, whilst the introduction of
circle time may be seen as a positive experience for early years children, research has
demonstrated that children’s enjoyment of this activity may be minimal. Wiltz and Klein (2001)
found that children aged 48-70 months described circle time in a negative way, regardless of
5
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
whether they were in high or low quality classrooms. Readdick and Chapman (2000) propose
that without asking children about classroom practices, observations of behaviour management
strategies such as ‘time-out’ may lead to speculation that they are hurtful or humiliating. Such
over simplification is confirmed by Wiltz and Klein (2001) who found that children’s
perceptions of time out are far more complex than such speculation would suggest. When
children were asked about things they didn’t like about school, time-out was reported
infrequently. However when asked what made them sad, angry or mad at school, time-out was
the second most frequently occurring response. There were also differences in perceptions of
time-out according to classroom experience and the way that this management technique was
used. Time-out appeared to work best where children experienced it infrequently. Consequently
the occasions when it was used appeared memorable. Where time-out was a principal means of
class control, children appeared to perceive it as commonplace or had learned to ignore it. The
fact that children discussed time-out, regardless of whether or not they had experienced it,
suggests that the children had developed a script about its meaning and consequence.
Understanding children’s perceptions of time-out can therefore make an important contribution
to classroom practice. Studies such as this also reveal how children’s understandings about the
world around them are not only based on concrete experiences as in cognitive constructivism,
but that scripts of possible experiences are also developed through interaction with others as in
social constructivism.
6
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Understanding children’s perceptions of play
As is indicated by Figure 1., the developmental potential of play can be maximised where
children perceive the activity as play and subsequently approach it in a playful manner. It is
therefore useful to understand how children perceive play and the ways in which they feel it
differs from other activities.
Figure 1. Utilising playfulness to maximise developmental potential
Player does not
perceive the activity
as play and
consequently does not
take a playful
approach.
Intrinsic qualities are
those for ‘serious
activity’.
If approached nonplayfully the
developmental
potential of the
activity may not be
maximised
THE OPPORTUNITY
Physical
Social
Cognitive
Emotional
Language
Player perceives the
activity as play and
consequently takes a
playful approach.
Intrinsic qualities such
as motivation,
enthusiasm, freedom
from fear, willingness
and engagement are
harnessed.
When approached
playfully, the
developmental
potential of the
activity can be
maximised
There are few studies that have investigated children’s perceptions of play (Table 1 summarises
these studies). Studies that have elicited such data challenge earlier theoretical perspectives such
as those of Isaacs (1932) and Manning and Sharp (1977), who proposed that children were
unable to distinguish play from other activities. Studies show that children are able to distinguish
play from other activities and refer to certain indicative characteristics such as play being fun,
noisy and spontaneous, occurring on the floor rather than at a table and being free from rules
(Fein 1985; King 1979).
7
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
The use of such characteristics has been affirmed by Wiltz and Klein (2001) who also found that
regardless of classroom quality, self-selection and choice are important determinants of play
activity. Wiltz and Klein (2001) also indicate that self-selection and choice can override activity
type in the categorisation of an activity, for example a teacher-directed colouring task could be
categorised as work whereas a self-initiated colouring activity be regarded as play. This again
highlights the need to separate the act of play from the feelings of playfulness brought to the
activity by the player themselves, as what looks like play from the outside may not be
approached in a playful manner. Further limitations of assuming a common script between the
outsider perceptions and the perceptions of the player are highlighted by Rothlein and Brett
(1987) who found a difference between what children considered to be their favourite play
activities (and therefore approached more enthusiastically) and what teachers thought they found
most enjoyable. Whilst teachers thought children most enjoyed block play, children themselves
were most enthusiastic about participation in outdoor play.
Karrby (1989) suggests that children’s perceptions of play are related to classroom experience. In
this study children from a play-oriented environment appeared to have a more diverse perception
of learning, where opportunities to learn were described in a number of classroom activities
including play. Children in a more teacher-directed and structured setting separated play from
learning, describing teacher directed activities as learning and self-initiated activity as play and
consequently not learning. Howard (in press) also suggests that children’s perceptions of play,
work and learning are influenced by early classroom experience. The Activity Apperception
Story Procedure (a photographic sorting task) indicated that children responded to cues when
making decisions about play, work and learning, namely space and constraint, positive affect, the
nature of the activity and teacher presence. Dependent on their classroom experience (primary
8
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
class or day nursery), children also attended to school context, free choice and skill development.
This study also demonstrated how the cues or characteristics used to define activities became
more complex with age, suggesting the elaboration of schema with time and experience.
Table 1 Summarising research into children’s perceptions of play
Rothlein and Brett
Karrby (1989)
Keating et al (2000)
(1987)
Interview
Interview
Interview
103 children 2-6 years
15 children 5-6 years
10 classes 5-6 years
Pre-schools and child
2 pre-school sites with
10 reception classes
care centres (USA)
differing provision (UK)
free v directed
(SWEDEN)
Play
Outdoors
Games with people
Art and Craft
Role play
Positive affect
Not play
TV
Sleep/eat
Colouring
Doing nothing
Play related to specific
activities. Adults and
children not always
perceive activities in a
similar way. Adults
dichotomise play and
learning.
Play
Pretence
Role play
Themes
Rules
Not play
Construction
Mastery
Learning
Ability
Practise
Books
Being taught
Skills
Sitting
Play meaningful,
children found it easier
to reflect on play than
learning. Adult
observations and child
reports often not
congruent. Free
environment children
did not separate play
from learning.
Play
Choice
Role play
Art and Craft
Colouring
Not important
Dichotomous to work
No teacher involved
Work
Having to
Occurs at school
Important
Involves teacher
Play subordinate to
work. No adult
involvement in play.
Play self controlled and
free whereas work
enforced and
compulsory. Attuned to
school context.
Howard (in press)
AASP
111 children 3-6 years
6 early years sites with
differing provision –
public/private, day
nursery/primary classes
(UK)
Play, work and
learning characterised
by;
Space and constraint
Teacher presence
Positive affect
School context
Nature of the activity
Skill development
Personal control
Play/not learning and
work/learning (+)
correlated. Children
used cues to categorise
activities. Choices
related to experience.
Child initiated
environment promotes
less dichotomy and
separation of play and
learning. Curriculum
emphasis influenced
children’s use of skill/
school context cue.
9
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Utilising feelings of playfulness
The value of play as a learning medium in relation to enthusiasm, motivation, creativity and
willingness to participate (King 1979; Moyles 1989), and the resulting social, cognitive and
emotional development (e.g. Sylva et al. 1980; Saracho 1991; Saracho and Spodek 1998) is
inextricably linked to the way in which the activity is perceived by the player. When considering
the benefits of play within early years education, the perspective of the child is of great
importance.
This paper has illuminated how young children are able to distinguish play from work and
learning from not learning. Previous research, has suggested that children are more enthusiastic
about involvement in play and even describe negative classroom experiences as being those
which interrupt play activity, for example participation in circle or nap time (Wiltz and Klein
2001). Therefore rather than concentrating wholeheartedly on the task in hand (Manning and
Sharp 1977) children so appear to distinguish activities and may approach them with a specific
mind set.
Playfulness is an internal state comprising the internal qualities that children bring to an activity.
It is therefore important to understand what children believe to be play, how such perceptions
may have developed and how feelings of playfulness can be evoked. This paper has revealed
how children attend to certain cues when making play, work and learning judgements. The
AASP stimuli (Howard in press) revealed how they refer to space and constraint (where an
activity takes place), teacher presence, positive affect (whether the activity is fun) and the nature
of the activity (academic versus play materials). In justifying their play, work and learning
judgements children also used a range of other cues, for example the educational context
(because the activity is occurring in school), skill development (getting better at something or
10
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
practising it), pretence (play because its pretending) and personal control (being able to choose).
The use of these cues was related to the type of educational provision, with marked differences
apparent between children attending primary classes and those in day nurseries. Children in
primary schools appeared far more aware of skill development, attainment and play being
available as choosing time after work. Children in day nurseries made far more learning
judgements and were more likely to see learning in a range of classroom situations including
play. This is consistent with the findings of Karrby (1989) who found that children in a more
structured setting dichotomised play and work more readily and did not perceive play as
learning, In contrast, children in the play oriented environment frequently described learning
through play.
How are practitioners empowered?
Through understanding children’s perceptions and their use of environmental cues, practitioners
may be empowered to exploit playfulness (Table 2).
Table 2 Using children’s perceptions to exploit playfulness
Space and constraint
Teacher presence
Positive affect
Skill development
Choice and control
In a structured setting children often learn that work occurs at a table and
play in any location. Where such a boundary does not exist, children are
more able to feel playful in a range of activities.
When children are unused to adult involvement in play they often use this
as a defining characteristic. Consequently an activity loses its play status
when an adult is present. Use of this cue can be prevented if children
frequently experience adult involvement in all classroom activities.
Encouraging positive affect in a range of classroom activities can maximise
learning by evoking a playful approach.
Increased emphasis on skill development and attainment reduces feelings of
playfulness. It is therefore important to emphasise process over product.
Children may approach activities more playfully when they perceive choice
and control.
11
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Findings from research into children’s perceptions of play support the proposition that children
use environmental and emotional cues to form schema for action and events (e.g. Rogoff 1990).
Children use both concrete experiences (as in what opportunities have been provided for them)
and the nature of classroom interactions (as in whether the teacher has been involved in their
play) to form their perceptions of play, work and learning. Both of these can be manipulated by
practitioners to exploit feelings of playfulness. Figure 2 demonstrates the process by which
children’s perceptions might develop and then be subsequently evoked.
Fig (2) dynamic model
Children’s perceptions influenced by experience
Practitioner / School
Structure
environment
Playful
approach
Make decisions
about interaction
Children’s perceptions
influenced by experience
- making sense of the
environment
Nonplayful
approach
Presentation of activity children look for cue match and
make decision about approach
Whilst generic definitions of play may cause straightjacketing as practitioners strive to provide
activities which correspond to defining characteristics, knowledge about children’s perceptions
of play is empowering. If we understand the kinds of things that lead children to categorise an
activity as play, then we are able to inject feelings of playfulness into a number of classroom
activities. For example, if children use teacher presence when making judgements about play,
then they are less likely to approach an activity playfully when there is teacher involvement.
Children who are used to teacher involvement in play activity are less likely to use this as a
defining feature and so will be more likely to accept adult involvement and retain a sense of
12
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
playfulness. This is important if practitioners are to be accepted as ‘committed co-players’ to
facilitate learning (Rich 2002). Understanding children’s perceptions of play and subsequent
playful approach enables playfulness to be harnessed and injected into a number of classroom
activities. This enables practitioners to align developmental and educational objectives through
the exploitation of children’s natural propensity to play.
References
Fein, G. (1985) Learning in play; surface of thinking and feeling. In J.L.Frost and S.Sunderlin (Eds)
When children play. Wheaton, Association for Childhood Education International.
Garvey, C. (1990) Play (enlarged edition). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Guha, M. (1988) Play in School, in G. Blenkin and A. Kelly, Early Childhood Education. London; Paul
Chapman.
Howard, J. (in press) Eliciting Young Children’s Perceptions of Play, Work and Learning Using the
Activity Apperception Story Procedure. Early Child Development and Care.
Isaacs, S. (1932) The Nursery Years. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Karrby, G. (1989) Children’s conceptions of their own play. International Journal of Early Childhood
Education, 21(2), 49-54.
King, R. (1978) All Things Bright and Beautiful ? A sociological study of infants classrooms. Bath:
Wiley.
King, R. (1979) Play: The Kindergartners Perspective. Elementary School Journal, 80(2), 81-87.
Krasnor, L.R. and Pepler, D.J. (1980) The study of children’s play : some suggested future directions, in
Rubin, K. (Ed) Children’s Play, Jossey Bass, San Fransisco.
Manning, K. and Sharp, A. (1977) Structuring play in the early years at school. London: Ward Lock
Associates.
Moyles, J. (1989) Just Playing : the role and status of play in early childhood education. London: Open
University Press.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1991) Applied Child Study : a developmental approach. NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Readdick, C. and Chapman, P. (2000) Young children’s perceptions of time out. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 15(1), 81-87.
Rich, D. (2002) Catching children’s stories. Early Education 36, p.6.
13
BERA Annual Conference 2002 Paper presentation
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking ; Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rothlein, L. and Brett, A. (1987) Children’s, Teachers and Parents Perceptions of Play. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 2(1), 45-53.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G. and Vandenberg, B. (1983) Play, in Mussen, P. H. and Hetherington, E. M.
(Eds) Handbook of Child Psychology (4th Ed) vol. 4, Basel, S. Karger.
Rudduck, J., Day, J. and Wallace, G. (1997) Students perspectives on school improvement. Yearbook,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1997, 73-91.
Saracho, O. (1991) Educational play in early childhood, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 66 pp
45 - 64.
Saracho, O. and Spodek, B. (1998) A Historical Overview of Theories of Play. In Saracho and Spodek
(Eds) Multiple Perspectives on Play in Early Childhood Education. New York: New York Press.
Sylva, K., Roy, C., and Painter, M. (1980) Childwatching at Playgroup and Nursery School. London:
Grant McIntyre.
Thomas, E. (1999) In Defence of Play. Article published in the Times Educational Supplement, July
1999.
Wiltz, N. and Klein, E. (2001) What do you care? Children’s perceptions of high and low quality
classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 (2001), 209-236.
Wood, D. (1986) Aspects of teaching and learning. In M. Richards and P. Light (eds) Children of Social
Worlds. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Wood, E. and Attfield, J. (1996) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum, London: Paul
Chapman.
Woodhead, M. and Faulkner, D. (2000) Subjects, Objects or Participants; Dilemmas of Psychological
Research with Children. In P. Christensen and A. James (Eds) Research with Children. London: Falmer
Press.
14