Last month, the Alliance for Childhood released a report titled “Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School.“ They had me with the first sentence: “The argument of this report, that child-initiated play must be restored to kindergarten will be dismissed and even ridiculed in some quarters.”
I let out a cheer that startled my co-workers.
I am a huge fan of play in the early childhood classroom (preschool through grade 3). The research is clear. Through play, children develop a host of important skills and knowledge including social skills (for negotiating and cooperating with peers), language (particularly in dramatic play, which studies show fosters children in using more complete and complex language), literacy (as they interact with literacy materials in the play environment), as well as math and science (as they interact with manipulatives including blocks, puzzles, and toy vehicles).
For those of you who didn’t let out a supportive cheer at news of this report, I’d like to clarify two things that I spend a great deal of time communicating to teachers during professional development. “Free play” doesn’t mean “free for all” and “child-initiated” doesn’t mean “teacher-free.”
Free play is distinguished from “structured” play by its opportunity to engage the imagination and its lack of rules (as in game rules, not behavior and classroom management rules). To reap the greatest benefits from free play, teachers need to be intentional about the activities and materials available during this portion of the day. Unfortunately, many teachers provision their centers with things like dolls and dishes, blocks, and a sensory table (sand and water table) but don’t rotate or supplement these provisions regularly. Day after day children can play house, build towers, and dig in the sand. The teachers are happy. The kids are happy. What else is there to do? Well, consider how the learning opportunities change if one day instead of a housekeeping center, there’s an airport setup; instead of a sand table, there’s an archaeological dig; and instead of 120 unit blocks, there are 120 unit blocks, a level, a tape measure, a book of home plans, and a construction hat. Consider further, how learning opportunities change if a week later the airport is replaced by a cruise ship complete with ball gowns and a captain’s buffet, and the sensory table is filled with balls of different sizes and a variety of containers with different sized openings. Or if the construction tools are replaced by plastic animals and vegetation. With intentionality, teachers can create play opportunities that reinforce specific skills and knowledge. This involves a planning on the part of the teacher, but enhances children’s opportunities to learn during free play.
With regard to my second clarification, “child-initiated” doesn’t mean “teacher-free.” The research is also clear about the role of teacher-child interactions in supporting children’s acquisition of knowledge. Adults support children’s learning by allowing children to demonstrate existing skills, and by scaffolding children in support of attaining more complex skills. By assuming a role in the play and minimizing directive behavior, adults can extend children’s opportunities to learn. For instance, by assuming a role during dramatic play, teachers can model language and actions for children without telling them what they should say or do. Children take the imaginative lead and teachers follow. By asking children about their work products in ways that require brainstorming, reflection or analysis, adults can extend children’s learning. For instance, “How do you think we can build the opening large enough for the animals to fit through?” Teacher-child interaction during play requires restraint on the part of the teacher to ensure that children are initiating and teachers are facilitating.
Yes! Thank you Alice. Your comments and analysis are truly refreshing.
I find it increasingly interesting how much convergence I, for one, now see in the views here at Core Knowledge and those described by those such as George H. Wood in his 1992 book “Schools that work”.
Just as the “Bridging Differences” blog between Deb Meier and Diane Ravitch has, for some time now, been exposing the fact that there are fewer real differences bring bridged between them — so it is between Hirsch and Wood!
And bravo for that. Because I think that those who really, seriously care about what children are learning, how they are learning it, and for what purpose, have a lot more in common now than we do with those whose big business and foundation backers want to take the public out of public education and argue that our economic woes are somehow the fault of our schools.
Comment by Mitchell Hirsch — April 25, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
The research on this topic has been very consistent for many years. Also, watch little children in a classroom that allows play and you will see youngsters who are fully engaged in the learning process. Watch children sitting in academic kindergartens and you will observe them struggling to stay focused on the teacher. Sadly these children are forced to do tedious and low-level work for hours when they might prefer the kind of play that fosters cognitive and linguistic development.
I went to an Open House the other night with the child next door. Her kindergarten classroom was filled with paper/pencil work but she showed no interest in any of it. I couldn’t help contrast this with my own pupils who (before NCLB) excitedly shared art and science projects with parents on this special night. It is my belief that this academic pressure on little children will be considered one of the worst effects of the Bush administration.
For some time now uninformed people have been making decisions about classroom instruction. How very sad for all of us.
Comment by Linda Johnson — April 27, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Thanks, Alice, for letting out that cheer and for your fine description of the complex role of teachers in child-initiated play. The restraint you refer to may be one of the most difficult skills for educators and parents to master in this age of supervigilance. At the Alliance for Childhood we have been studying the way playworkers do it in Great Britain and other places. There’s a wealth of knowledge out there about nurturing play, but it’s largely unknown in the U.S.
The Alliance will soon be publishing “The Playwork Primer” by Penny Wilson, a superb London playworker who has been giving workshops in the U.S. for the last five years. Watch for it at http://www.allianceforchildhood.org.
Ed Miller (co-author of “Crisis in the Kindergarten”)
Comment by Ed Miller — April 29, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
I cannot comment on what works best for the early grades. But is there a connection, or not, between play in elementary school and my experience in high school, that a large number of the students fully expected to play in class, or at the very least be entertained?
Comment by Susan T. — May 2, 2009 @ 8:11 am
Kudos for this article-people forget that children learn best at their developmental level and young children’s work is play in adult eyes. We had a small workshop on this at the international school where I teach and most teachers complained about “no time to play” Of course play should be high on the agenda not paper and pencil tasks.
Comment by Paula W — May 5, 2009 @ 5:22 am
But why make an opposition: play OR paper-and-pencil tasks? Why not: play AND paper-and-pencil tasks? People play at all ages, and rightly so. However, at some point children need to begin a transition between a life (perhaps)dominated by play and the conscious assumption of adult responsibilities, transition that does not come quickly or easily; it is a rather long and gradual apprenticeship and needs direct intervention from adults.
Comment by Susan T. — May 8, 2009 @ 8:03 am