Abstract
This proposal suggests that the incorporation of ‘child-led play’ into the school day can have significant developmental and psychological benefits, particularly with regards to social and emotional well-being. Social and emotional skills are arguably foundational to later well-being and success, however the development of these skills tend to be eclipsed by the attention given to academic success. Although play’s importance has received some recognition, child-led or ‘free’ play is the least common type of play in schools or child-care settings (Catalano, 2018). Numerous studies have found that child led play can provide benefits far beyond those which can be achieved through more adult led play, especially in areas of social skills, autonomy and self-regulation (Hewes, 2014). This study aims to identify whether benefits can be had from allocating more time for free and child-led play on children’s emotional and social development. It will also explore the effect this may have on academic attainment.
The Importance of Play
Play is often quoted as ‘the work of the child’ (Montessori as cited in Murray, 2018). Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) views play as so important that it has been recognised as a fundamental right that all children should be able to access (Hodgkin, 2007). Hewes (2014) argues that play is a necessity to their children’s sense of well-being and a major contributor to social and emotional health and resilience over the life-span.
So it would seem that play is not just for ‘fun’, instead it serves to support important developmental processes. In fact play can be viewed as a major means by which children (1) develop intrinsic interests and competencies; (2) learn how to make decisions, solve problems, exert self-control, and follow rules; (3) learn to regulate their emotions; (4) make friends and learn to get along with others as equals; and (5) experience joy (Gray, 2011). Pretend play in particular has been shown to support social processing and empathic reasoning. Children who spend more time in pretend play with others tend to be more socially competent, imaginative and creative (Borstein & Lamb, 1999).
Play also has important implications for learning and higher cognitive functioning (Glascott Burris & Tsao, 2012) Piaget noted that play is a means of facilitating learning by exposing “a child to new experiences and new possibilities of physical and mental activities for dealing with the world” (Piaget, 1967) Building on this, Vygotsky thought the function of play was to help children develop self- regulation, expand the separation between thought and actions, and develop the skills needed to obtain a higher cognitive functioning. (Hughes, 1999). So it would seem that since at least the 1960s play has been recognised for its benefits to both developmental wellbeing and to educational outcomes.
The Decline of Play
However, much recent research into play, also identifies it’s notable decline (Gray, 2011, Digennaro, 2021). There are many factors that can help to explain this. If we examine this from an ecological perspective, Brofenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Brofenbrenner, 1998) can give some insight into how each sphere has had an impact on play opportunities for children. Within the micro-system, many parents are both working, children have much more access to passive entertainment which may be chosen over ‘true toys’ (Ginsburg, 2007) Within the meso-system, fears of safety concerns for outdoor play means that fewer children are accessing the outdoors (Gray, 2011) and much of play they do experience is structured and adult led (Hewes, 2014; King, 2016). Within the exo-system, the systems implemented on schools means that academic rigour is prioritised over play for children. Play that is incorporated is usually measured up against the learning benefits it may have and tightly controlled by teachers (King, 2016).
Figure 1: Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
So it can be seen that across all spheres, play has seen a sharp decline over the past half century due to a multitude of factors. Over the same period, anxiety, depression, suicide, feelings of helplessness, and narcissism have increased sharply in children, adolescents, and young adults. Gray (2011) contends that the decline in play has contributed to the rise in the psychopathology of young people.
The significance of play on child development is beginning to be recognised in the UK, which has developed its own play policies and strategies. Professor Sir Harry Burns, Former Chief Medical Officer Scotland stated that “Investing in children’s play is one of the most important things we can do to improve children’s health and wellbeing in Scotland.” Ginsburg (2007) Wales was the first country in the UK to develop a play policy with the aim to support children’s health and well-being (playwales, nd) and although England is yet to make its own policy, there have been initiatives such as the Manchester Circles Model (Finney and Atkinson. 2020) that demonstrate that awareness is developing. However, this is yet to spread to all communities and many spaces and provisions for children continue to lack real play opportunities. Children from low socio-economic backgrounds are likely to suffer even more greatly from play deprivation (Shah, Gustafson & Atkins, 2019).
The Relevance of Play in Schools
As school is somewhere children spend a substantial proportion of their time mixing with their peers, incorporating more play into the school day could be one way to increase play opportunities. Accessing play in school may particularly help low socio-economic children who may otherwise not have access to the same developmentally beneficial play outside of school. In addition, schools are places where children have regular routines, mix with familiar children and have built relationships with adult staff. The benefits that periods of play can have to successive learning also proves as an argument to incorporate more time for play in schools: unstructured breaks from demanding cognitive tasks have been shown to facilitate school learning as well as promoting social competence and adjustment to school (Whitebread et al. 2017).
The age group of 6-7 years was chosen for the following reasons: this age group receives less focus in policy than the pre-school or early years period. However, within some definitions, such as the one described by the World Health Organisation (Irwen, 2007) the age from 5-8 is still classed as being part of Early Child Development (ECD). Piaget defined the ages between 2 and 6 as the pre-operational stage during which children learn to use language, think symbolically, and represent their ideas using pictures and objects. He believed that this time was crucial for learning through active and hands-on experiences. It is not until around the age of 7 that major developmental changes take place and children begin to think in the abstract (Piaget. 1967). UNICEF’s report on play in the early years also identified the period between the ages of 6 and 8 as a time when play-based learning continues to be critical yet often neglected (Figure 2: UNICEF, 2018). This suggests that KS1 continues to be a period in which children are primed to develop through play and one which deserves more attention than it is currently given.
Figure 2: Play in the Early Years (UNICEF, 2018)
Findings from Neuroscience
Research in neuroscience suggests that children have built in mechanisms to play. Indeed play is not only universal in children across all cultures, but all young mammals engage in play behaviours (Frost, 1998). One suggested reason for this is that play provides a method of equipping children (and young mammals) with the skills needed later in life. Children engage in socially and culturally mediated task analysis, problem solving, negotiation and discourse through their play (Frost, 1998). Play has been seen to promote connections in the brain through linking familiar and unfamiliar stimuli (Liu et al. 2017). The importance of play with other children has also been highlighted: whereas social and emotional systems of children depend primarily on interactions with their caregivers or other caring adults early in life, they are more attuned to their peers later in childhood (Lui et al. 2017). This supports the view that play with peers can be of real benefit to children in KS1 classes.
Autonomy and Choice in Play
Choice is a strong feature of play and the commonly referenced definition of play being ‘freely chosen, intrinsically motivated and with no external goals’ is used by play policies in the United Kingdom (Play England; Play Scotland; Play Wales (n.d)). However the polices don’t always reflect what happens in practice (Wood, 2004, 2007). Educational settings in particular often have much greater levels of ‘adult led’ play than ‘child led’ play (King, 2016). The amount of choice perceived by the child also affects whether they feel they are engaged in play. Play within education settings is often used to meet a predetermined outcome which limits the amount of choice children would have. If the focus was, more on the process rather than the outcome, there would potentially more opportunity for children to perceive any activity they engage in to be play, even if they do not have all the choice (Bergen, 1988; King and Howard, 2014; King, 2016)
The adaptive value of play in the development of social competence, emotional resilience, and flexibility in response to unpredictability and stress has been increasingly recognised in psychology. Hewes (2014) argues that spontaneous free play, controlled and directed by children and understood from the child’s perspective, contributes to children’s subjective experience of well-being, building a foundation for life-long social and emotional health. This demonstrates its value and presents an argument for more child-led play in educational contexts.
Methodology
Participants
Schools which follow the National Curriculum for England and Wales have a transition between the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS- which covers the ages between 3 and 5) and the beginning of Key Stage One (KS1- which covers the ages between 5 and 7). Within EYFS, play is emphasised as essential for children’s development. Practitioners are expected to stimulate children’s interests, respond to each child’s emerging needs and guide their development through warm, positive interactions coupled with secure routines for play and learning (DfE, 2021). The learning which takes place in KS1 can be of stark contrast and many teachers, parents and children have expressed challenges in adapting to the new curriculum (Fisher, 2021; Sharp et al. 2006).
This study aims to focus on more structured KS1 classes. In some schools, continuous provision is beginning to extend to Year 1 classes (age 5-6) and for the first term at least, many schools continue a hybrid approach using both EYFS and the National Curriculum framework as a form of transition between the two phases. Year 2 classes (age 6-7) on the other hand, are expected to have a much more structured timetable. In the UK, this year group undergoes Statutory Assessment Tests (SATs) putting additional pressure on schools to ensure students achieve the required learning objectives. However it has been shown that the amount of less-structured time in 6-7 year-old’s daily lives, including free play alone and with others, predicted their cognitive self-regulation (as cited in Whitebread, 2017). This study hopes to confirm whether the benefits of child-led play already noted may be achieved by freeing up some structured time in a Year 2 classroom.
Approach
The suggested intervention is to provide additional opportunities for child-led play in a Year 2 class. The proposal is that this is set up as ‘continuous provision’ which is already embedded in most EYFS settings and is beginning to be incorporated into some KS1 classrooms. However, as noted earlier, the amount of autonomy and choice given to children can vary considerably between settings. This intervention’s focus is on allowing for ‘child led’ play where children feel a sense of autonomy and choice.
The phrase ‘continuous provision’ refers to the resources and areas in a classroom used to provoke learning through play and exploration. The resources should be freely accessible to the children in the classroom during any designated ‘free play’ time and should stay the same throughout the school year. The continuous provision resources provided in each area should be engaging and relevant. They should challenge and promote critical thinking and problem solving, while remaining open-ended (Mactivity, 2021). Botrill describes effective continuous in the following way:
“…open-ended, accessible, flexible, large scale and skills-driven. It is planned but only in a loose sense. An adult’s plan is not a child’s plan. Children don’t have to reach a specific outcome determined by the adult. Instead continuous provision should offer an index of possibilities. It should enable children to bring their magic with them into the environment and shape it. Equally it should create the conditions for collaboration and self-chosen purpose.” (Botrill. nd)
Although the intervention aims for play to be ‘child led’. The role of adults is still important. Through continuous provision, practitioners can present children with opportunities to make meaningful choices and can assist and guide children who may not know how to engage with resources independently (NAEYC, 2009). The practitioner can support play by varying the amount of external motivation of the practitioner and the internal motivation of the child. This would enable working to both the child’s actual and potential level (Vygotsky, 1978) where it has been shown that when children perceive they have more choice this leads to superior developmental effect, as children can set and amend target outcomes (McInnes et al., 2011).
Table 1: The Intervention Timeline
| Intervention Stages | ||
| Intervention prep | Spring Term(approx 6 weeks) | School and class identifiedInitial training delivered to involved staff |
| Pre-intervention | Summer Term (approx 2 weeks) | Data collected from previous, comparison Year 2 class at the end of the academic year |
| Intervention | Full academic year- Autumn Term Start(39 weeks) | Year 2 class will have a full academic year to implement the intervention. |
| Post-intervention | Summer Term(approx 2 weeks) | Data collected from the intervention class at the end of the academic year and compared with the previous, comparison class. |
The practitioners involved in the study (this may be Year 2 teachers and learning assistants) will first need to be trained in supporting continuous provision if this is not something they are already familiar with. Training packages such as those offered by Early Excellence (Early Excellence, nd) will help to ensure that everyone understands the rationale behind the implementation and will feel confident in its delivery.
The intervention suggests that children are provided with an additional two hours of choice time through continuous provision a week over that which the previous class would have had. This can be flexible according to the school’s existing timetable and may involve more shorter sessions or a couple of longer sessions in the week. Two hours was chosen as it is a notable increase to the comparison class, but is also sympathetic to the demands that teachers may feel to cover curriculum content.
Measures and Analysis
This proposal suggests that a comparison is made between the previous Year 2 class in the same school (the control class) and the Year 2 class for which the intervention will take place. The control class will not have received the extra allocation of continuous provision but will participate in the same questionnaires and end of year assessment data. This will include academic results to observe any impact of the intervention on academic measures.
The data collected will achieve triangulation through both quantitative qualitative measures. Academic data will be collected quantitatively through SATs scores and teacher assessment. Well-being data will be collected both quantitatively through PASS assessments, as well as qualitatively through interviews. Triangulation will serve to cross verify across more than two sources and therefore increase the validity of the findings.
PASS (pupil attitudes to self and school) assessments require additional costs to deliver but are a well-respected means of assessing student social and emotional well-being (Teacher Toolkit, 2016) The assessment is undertaken by completing a 20 minute questionnaire authored by educational psychologists, universities and local authorities. This provides a standardised measure of nine attitudinal factors: pupils feelings about school, perceived learning capability, self-regard, preparedness for learning, attitudes to teaching, general work ethic, confidence in learning, attitudes to attendance, and response to curriculum demands. The report collates results to reveal individual, whole class and whole school attitudinal profiles, which can be broken down further to show how each group compares nationally by gender, ethnicity and year group. This also ensures that data is easy to compare between classes and over time (GL Assessment, nd).
Qualitative data will be collected through interviews with involved teachers, children and parents from the class. The interviews will follow the same format for both the control class (the previous Year 2 class) and the study class and will consider the perceived emotional and social well-being of children in the class. All teachers involved in the study will be interviewed to gain a broad picture of experience. A randomly selected sample of 8 students and their parents will provide the student and parent interview data.
Programme Management
The costs involved in the intervention will vary depending on the existing training involved staff have received as well as the existing resources available to set up provision areas. If the school involved lacked training or resources, Early Excellence or similar programmes may offer a good starting point. The costs involved in this scenario may look something like the outline on Table 2.
Table 2: Costs of implementing the intervention (with no prior knowledge/resources)
| Programme/product | Costs |
Three-part webinar package – rethinking KS1 | £125 (exc. VAT) per person |
Medium Complete Classroom 5-7yrs | £10,390.97 |
PASS survey assessments for the class | £1.50 per student |
Discussion
The study will require some considerable commitment and ‘buy in’ from all stake-holders involved. The school’s leadership in particular would need to see the value of making such changes in what many view as a ‘crucial’ year for children and one which the school is judged on from the SATs scores achieved. As the intervention is planned to be carried out for the entirety of the year and potentially involves some considerable cost, it is likely that school leadership will see this as a permanent change rather than a one-off intervention. This means that the costs required to begin the programme will be negated over the long-run. However, it does also mean that the school needs to already be willing to make these changes due to the expected outcome but before this outcome can be confirmed through the results.
If the outcomes of the study show positive effects of additional child-led play this would have implications for current practice in many KS1 classrooms. Although more evidence would be needed to demonstrate its application in different contexts, it may suggest a need for changes in policy and in the criteria for school inspection.
It would be beneficial to see whether the same results could be gained with different participants. One obvious way of doing this would be to conduct the study in a school in a different cultural context e.g. a school in Asia. As attitudes to education, play and child autonomy vary between cultures, it would be valuable to explore whether this has an impact on the outcome of the study.
Another dynamic to explore could be the socio-economic background of the student participants. There has already been research that highlights the differences in play opportunities for children with different socio-economic status (Shah, 2019). Another variable to consider is the existing academic development of pupils. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have lower academic performance when they begin school (Christiansen, 2020; Marmot, 2020) and this widens throughout the course of their education (Ryan, Fauth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006). An important question is whether more time for play supports their academic development. Or, as many would perhaps fear, result in students falling further behind due to reduced time spent on the structured practice of basic skills.
In addition to changing the participants of the study, it may also be worth exploring changes in the approach. Two hours of additional child-led time may not be enough to see a significant impact or provide enough evidence to prove for either positive or negative effects of the intervention. A study which examines classes that provide even more time for choice may provide further valuable insights into the costs or benefits.
In conclusion, a substantial body of research has highlighted the benefits that play can have to children’s well-being, with play that is child-led and autonomous demonstrating particular benefits in key developmental areas. The research is beginning to be translated into policy but practice has been slow to incorporate any substantial changes. As child-led play is becoming increasingly rare across developed countries, it becomes essential that we are finding methods of allowing children the space and time to engage in this necessary activity. This proposal argues that accessing play within schools is one such way of achieving this.
References:
Bergen, Doris. (1988). “Using a Schema for Play and Learning.” In Play as a Medium for Learning and Development: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, edited by Doris Bergen, 169–80.
Bornstein, M. H., & Lamb, M. E. (1999). Ch.2. Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bottrill, G. (n.d.). Continuous Provision. “CAN I GO AND PLAY NOW..?” https://www.canigoandplaynow.com/continuous-provision.html
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of development processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993–1027). Wiley.
Catalano, H. (2018). The Importance of Free Play in Early Childhood and Primary School Education: Critical Analysis for Romania. Educational Research Applications. Published. https://doi.org/10.29011/2575-7032/100050
Christensen, D., Taylor, C. L., Hancock, K. J., & Zubrick, S. R. (2020). School readiness is more than the child: a latent class analysis of child, family, school and community aspects of school readiness. Australian Journal of Social Issues. Published. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.138
Department for Education (DfE). (2021, March). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Crown Copyright. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974907/EYFS_framework_-_March_2021.pdf
Digennaro, S. (2021). Decline of free play as a form of educational poverty. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 21, 657-660. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2021.s1078
Early Excellence Ltd. (n.d.). Early Years Resources, Furniture & Training | Nurseries & Primary Schools. Early Excellence. https://earlyexcellence.com
Finney, R & Atkinson, C (2020) Children’s views about factors affecting access to home, school and community play, International Journal of Play, 9:4, 439-456, DOI: 10.1080/21594937.2020.1843806
Fisher, J. (2021). To play or not to play: teachers’ and headteachers’ perspectives on play-based approaches in transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1 in England. Education 3–13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1912136
Frost, J. L. (1998, June). Neuroscience, Play, and Child Development. IPA/USA Triennial National Conference, Longmont, CO. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED427845
Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds. PEDIATRICS, 119(1), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2697
Glascott Burriss, K & Tsao, L (2002) Review of Research: How Much Do We Know about the Importance of Play in Child Development?, Childhood Education, 78:4, 230-233, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2002.10522188
GL Assessment. (n.d.). Pupil Attitudes to Self and School (PASS). https://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/assessments/pass/
Gray, P. (2011) The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play. 2011;3(4):443-463.
Hewes, J. (2014). Seeking Balance in Motion: The Role of Spontaneous Free Play in Promoting Social and Emotional Health in Early Childhood Care and Education. Children 1, no. 3: 280-301
Hughes, F. P. (2009). Children, Play, and Development (Fourth ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hodgkin, R.; Newell, P. (2007). Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child; United Nations Childrenʼs Fund (UNICEF): Geneva, Switzerland.
Irwin, L. G., Siddiqi, A., & Hertzman, G. (2007). Early child development: a powerful equalizer. Vancouver, BC: Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP).
King, P. (2012). Children’s Perceptions of Choice in Relation to their Play at Home, in the School Playground and at The Out-of-School Club. Children & Society, 28:2, 116-127
King, P., & Howard, J. (2016). Free Choice or Adaptable Choice: Self Determination Theory and Play. American Journal of Play, 9(1), 56–70.
Liu, C., Solis, S. L., Jensen, H., Hopkins, E. J., Neale, D., Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Whitebread, D. (2017). Neuroscience and learning through play: a review of the evidence (research summary). The LEGO Foundation, DK.
Piaget, J. (1961). Explanation of play. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, New York (Norton & Co) 19
Mactivity, H. (2021, July 8). What Is Continuous Provision In KS1 And EYFS? Mrs Mactivity. https://www.mrsmactivity.co.uk/what-is-continuous-provision/
McInnes, K., Howard, J., Miles, G., and Crowley, K. (2011). “Differences
in practitioners’ understanding of play and how this influences pedagogy and
children’s perceptions of play.” Early Years, 31, 2: 121-133.
Murray, J. (2018). The play’s the thing. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(4), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1527278
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8: A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf
PlayEngland. (n.d) Charter for Play. PlayEngland. https://www.playengland.org.uk/charter-for-play
Play Scotland. (n.d). Play for Health. Play Scotland. https://www.playscotland.org/play/play-for-health/
Play Wales. (n.d.). Play Wales | Home. Playwales.Org.Uk. https://www.playwales.org.uk/eng/
Ryan R,M., Fauth, R. C., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Childhood poverty: Implications for school readiness and early childhood education. In Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (pp. 301–321). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841198
Shah, R., Gustafson, E., Atkins, M. (2019) Parental Attitudes and Beliefs Surrounding Play Among Predominantly Low-income Urban Families: A Qualitative Study, Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics: October/November 2019 – Volume 40 – Issue 8 – p 606-612 DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000708
Sharp, C., White, G., Burge, B., & Eames, A. (2006, May). Making a Successful Transition to Year 1. Nfer: Practical research for education. https://nfer.ac.uk/nfer/PRE_PDF_Files/06_35_04.pdf
TeacherToolkit. (2017, January 9). Pupil Attitudes to Self and School. https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/2016/10/16/pupil-attitudes/
The Lego Foundation, Liu, C., Lynneth Solis, S., Jensen, H., Hopkins, E., Neale, D., Zosh, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Whitebread, D. (2017, November). Neuroscience and learning through play: a review of the evidence. Creative Commons Attribution. https://www.legofoundation.com/media/1064/neuroscience-review_web.pdf
The Play Project. (2021). What Some Say about Play. The Play Project. Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://playproject.org/play-quotes/
UNICEF. (2018) Learning Through Play: Strengthening Play Through Play in Early Childhood Education Programmes. UNICEF, NY.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Revised ed.). Harvard Univ Pr.
Whitebread, D., Neale, D., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Solis, S.L., Hopkins, E., Hirsh-Pasek, K. Zosh, J. M. (2017). The role of play in children’s development: a review of the evidence (research summary). The LEGO Foundation, DK.
Wood, E. (2004). “A New Paradigm War? The Impact of National Curriculum
Policies on Early Childhood Teachers’ Thinking and Classroom Practice.” Teaching
and Teacher Education 20:361–74.
Wood, E (2007). “New Directions in Play: Consensus or Collision?” Education 3–13 35:309–20.
