Play-Based Learning in Scottish Primary Education

Introduction

There is a current focus within Scottish education which is related to how learning in primary one is accessed by our youngest school citizens. The concept of play-based learning is gradually being adopted into the first year of primary schools nationwide. At the time of commencing this study, I was employed within Edinburgh City Council as an early year’s practitioner to support the introduction of play across two primary one classes. This was a temporary role through the pupil equity funding with the hope to help close the poverty related attainment gap. The Scottish Attainment Challenge aims to ensure equality for all children in education (Scottish Government, 2015). It also recognises that; some children may not be developmentally ready to begin formal learning at this stage. Scottish children are some of the youngest in Europe to begin formal schooling (Palmer, 2016). In many countries across the globe, children start schooling at the age of seven. Leading up to this, they have a kindergarten experience, where learning is through play and the focus is on the individual child’s development (Palmer, 2016). Until recently, in Scotland, there has been a dichotomy between the holistic, child centred early years environment to that of a didactic, attainment focused school setting (Cassidy, 2005). The introduction of a play-based approach aims for more consistency to bridge this divide (Scottish Government, 2015). This transition has led to a shift in thinking and practice for staff in my organisation. Through research and practice, I have found beliefs and concepts of play that are widely varied. Within my setting, one class appeared to embrace the change and the other had demonstrated some resistance. The management’s vision and support towards play has mixed messages, as they attempt to navigate overseeing this approach. These factors have attributed to a segregation in ideologies and a feeling on unease between the staff team. The children in each class are also having contrasted experiences of school so far. O’Sullivan (2009) explained that, “If you have introduced a change, no matter how small, the chances of conflict are up. Leaders need to articulate the rationale, benefits and impacts of change for individuals, the local authority and partners. Specific changes will often be determined by users, so leaders need to build a high level of responsiveness into the service and to make sure that the pace of change is acceptable to users” (2009: 65). Through engaging with this research, my aim was to investigate the perspectives of a sample of all stakeholders to gain a better understanding of each in a bid to move forward together positively. Agee (2009: 439) notes, from Flick (2006) “qualitative studies can reveal how people experience and think about events and social relations, so a qualitative question needs to be developed to take advantage of the unique capabilities of qualitative research.”

The main questions I set originally were:

What are the benefits of implementing play to achieve outcomes in numeracy and literacy?

What knowledge do the teachers currently have about learning through play?

What are the differences in how children learn in nursery compared to Primary one?

During the data collection phase I realised I had to reduce and refine my questions due the small scale of the project. My questions now stand as:

What are the benefits and barriers of implementing play to achieve outcomes in numeracy and literacy?

What knowledge do the teachers currently have about learning through play?

I shall begin with a literature review examining some of the vast theories and policies surrounded by learning through play in primary one. I shall then discuss the methodology, used to conduct the study. I will follow the ethical considerations for the participants in carrying out these methods. I will then discuss the findings of the study and provide a critical reflection on the project as a whole to conclude.

Literature Review

A Brief History from The Pioneers

Although currently topical in primary education, learning through play is not a new concept. These historical philosophies are still the basis of some modern theory and policy today as I shall explore. There are three central philosophies, which have shaped our education system today. The Romantic Philosophy discusses the natural learning of children is discovered through play and this influenced a child centred approach. Rousseau (1712-1778) believed that, the children should be free in their play to choose their own learning, much like a nursery setting today and what Primary one is aiming to embed more of. Rousseau emphasised on the need for concrete materials rather than abstract notions. Steiner highlighted the whole child in their learning and suggests the teacher is a support in education rather than an instructor. This places unstructured play as a vital role in early years education (Pound, 2006). Froebel believed that, education is in lived experiences and play is a key component of education. He posed that; education should encourage people for being independent critical thinkers. Froebel encouraged practitioners to be where the learner is, not where they should be (Bruce, 2012). Dewey concurs with this thinking of learning by doing in real life experiences to make discoveries and like Rousseau he believed in child centred pedagogy. He highlighted that, the importance of inter disciplinary learning and teachers being reflective in their practice (Mooney, 2000). Isaacs work drew upon that of Froebel and Dewey in learning through free unrestricted play rather than instructional teaching. “There are characteristic phases of development as children pass from infancy to maturity. And these phases do call for difference in treatment and methods of teaching. But they are not marked off from each other at their boundaries.” (Isaacs, 1932: 20-21). This may suggest children need a smoother transition from nursery rather than the abrupt change it has been, purely because they are now (without choice) in school. Progressive Philosophy is a ‘constructivist’ view, which perceives education as growth. Children grow when they interact with their physical and social environments in a structured but natural manner. The teacher will support learning when necessary. They believe that, learning comes from building new facts onto existing knowledge and learning is dependent on context. Piaget’s developmental theory has been influential in education. He believes that, child development has a particular order with predetermined stages leading to logical ability. He posits that children acquire knowledge by experience and understandings of relationships between people and objects. He saw education as a means for children to develop into discoverers and inventors and to develop critical thinking (Piaget, 1955). Piaget’s theory has received much criticism including that of Isaac who believed he did not pay enough attention to the emotional and social aspects of learning. She and others disagree with his developmental theory as a process of stages, rather it being no different to that of an adult, except the fact that children have less experience to work from. Malaguzzi’s theory of the ‘hundred languages of children’ believes that all children are capable, competent learners able to think for themselves and are creative communicators with many intelligences. He was a pioneer of Reggio Emilia approach with a child centred focus (1993). Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory recognises that, the children learn through interactions and play with others, especially those who are more knowledgeable. He described, the zone of proximal development as the gap in which activities children can do independently and which they need support with. (Vygotsky, 1978).

Cultural Transmission Theorists view education as imparting skills, knowledge, principles, moral and social standards down through the generations. The behaviourist ideology is linked to this theory. Rote learning lies within this discipline along with educational methods which reward positive behaviour to reinforce such behaviour. This theory has raised criticism for being too didactic.

The Meaning of Play

The play discourse itself is ambiguous meaning different things to different professionals. Play theorists themselves have not agreed on one definition (Sutton-Smith, 1999, Burghardt, 2005). Burghardt (2005) stated that, ambiguity does not minimise its importance. Many theorists have stated play is not simply one tenet, but it is multi-layered (Jenvey and Jenvey, 2002). One definition offered originally by Susan Isaacs has been adopted into The National Play Strategy (Scottish Government, 2013) and Building the Ambition (Scottish Government, 2014) is that ‘play encompasses children’s behaviour which is freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated.’

With the concept of play remaining nebulous and the introduction of play in primary schools being a relatively new philosophy there is some trepidation of the validity of play. It is not respected or valued; therefore, play is restricted in school classrooms (Palmer, 2016). In practice, there are constraints from prioritising outcomes within the curriculum, attainment goals and the primary one testing (Rogers, 2005) which give rise to the conflict between learning through play and traditional teacher led lessons (Santer et al. 2007).

As evident within early years settings, Pramling-Samuelsson and Johanssen (2006) proposed that, there does not have to be a dichotomy between learning and play, the two are inextricably linked. This would mean considering the classroom environment and how it is arranged to facilitate play, reconsidering the resources available to children and letting go of ideologies and control to have trust in children’s abilities to allow play experiences to evolve naturally (Abbott and Nutbrown, 2001; Pramling Samuelsson and Johanssen, 2006). Yogman et al. (2018) suggest pedagogues should be encouraged to acknowledge learning through play as vital in accompanying didactic learning. Adults’ perceptions of children and how they learn may be influencing formal teaching methods. Children require agency over their own learning and to be recognised as competent social actors who can be active in their school environment and to have agency over their learning (James, Jenks and Prout, 1998).

Literacy and Numeracy

There is a vast amount of literature to support the role of play in literacy development (Weisberg et al., 2013). Roskos and Christie (2001) proposed that, play offers children the chance to use and learn new vocabulary which aids reading and writing in later learning. Bergen (2009) discussed the benefits of creative play to aid critical thinking which support mathematic and scientific concepts. It is widely suggested, from research that, to force formal teaching may be counterproductive and damaging, instead children’s learning should be able to emerge naturally at their own pace through play experiences or a balance of play and adult directed activities (Suggate, 2009). Katz (1992) commented that, didactic methods to transmit skills or knowledge may themselves harm or undermine the disposition to use them. Palmer and Bayley (2008) suggested that, many children will achieve knowledge of phonics, recognition of letters and common words and begin to structure sentences naturally through their own emergent writing and reading activities by the age of six. They suggest concentrating on language and listening skills, music and social development and the physical skills required for handwriting to be developed before formal learning can succeed. Palmer (2016) stated that, the children who begin formal schooling age five demonstrate no difference in reading capability compared to children who start at seven. Thomas (1995) emphasised on the children, who were formally taught at five “developed fewer positive attitudes to reading and showed poorer text comprehension than those whose children had started later” (Whitebread, 2018: 1). Children’s play must be self-directed, they must be in control of their own learning and afforded the freedom to do so (Gray, 2011, Bruce, 2011).

Play affords opportunities where children do not feel threatened to make errors in their explorations and to problem solve for themselves rather than activities which only afford right or wrong outcomes, such as in the case of worksheets or having to answer a closed right or wrong question which may cause anxiety of getting it wrong. Holt (1975) suggested that, the children don’t see themselves as learning and are not afraid to try new things when they are engaged in meaningful activity. He proposed that, children begin to read because they see others reading and discover reading is a way to enjoy stories and is useful in their lives. Holt believed that, the children are inspired to learn to read things of interest to them such as stories, environmental print and deduce the components of words naturally rather than teaching phonics and forcing the memorisation of sight words. Samuel (2003) stated that, the children will learn to read and write when they are ready, and they must have opportunities to experiment with writing in play. Carter (1998) discussed the importance of spoken language to all other learning. She stated that, there is no specific part of the brain for reading or writing but it stems from talking which has to come first. Children require the ability to experiment with and comprehend cultural symbols for reading and writing (Bruce, 1997; Whitehead 2002). Present research on early literacy evidences the relationship between socially engaged experiential play and language and literacy acquisition (Owocki, 1999; Morrow, 2001). For example, having props to engage children’s language and social interactions, books, varied writing materials, puppets and environmental print. Morrow (2001) advocated the use of art as a mode to fine motor development and promote writing and word recognition. Poetry, music, rhyme and songs can help with phonics, words, numeracy and self-expression (Morrow, 2001). Yetzes (2003) researched on drawing and early literacy shows children require a well-planned environment with a rich variety of available resources and knowledgeable supportive adults.

Play also has scope for mathematical problem solving with children discovering concepts such as ‘How many?’ How big/tall/high/small/heavy and so on. “What shape/size/distance/angle” (Palmer, 2016: 95). She notes there is a difference between recognising a numerical symbol or the ability to count by rote and understanding what the number actually means or how it is linked to simple calculations. “This involves visual, spatial and problem-solving skills which, as usual, are best developed over time through real life experiences” She explains these creative experiences develop “deep, embodied understanding of quantity, shape, volume, weight” (2016: 94). For example, in baking activities children are acquiring the knowledge of amounts, weight and measuring for a purpose. Counting for a purpose, sorting, matching and making patterns with real materials, numbers through song and rhyme. Large construction affords many mathematical concepts for example size, shape, proportions, weight, balance, and so on. (Gura, 1982, Provenzo, 1983). Froebel realised the connection between natural materials, mathematics, construction and architecture (Gura, 1982). Add in graph paper for architectural design, measuring tapes, rulers, spirit levels, literature on architecture and so forth, there is boundless opportunities to cover every aspect of the curriculum.

Policy

There are many policies to support practitioners in early years to evaluate and reflect on their own practice and the learning environment to enhance experiences for children.

Building the Ambition (Scottish Government, 2014) offers guidance on the types of interactions and experiences children need and what a quality environment should provide. This is widely used as a tool of reference for practitioners in early years settings but does not extend up to primary one. The teachers in my setting had not previously heard of this document. The same is true for the Scottish Government document ‘Up, Up and Away! Building Foundations to Literacy in the Early Years’ (2011) This includes an environmental checklist to ensure a literacy rich environment. Both of these documents are aimed at Early Learning and Childcare provisions, yet they may prove to be a useful resource in primary one, especially in the infancy of this approach.

Building the Curriculum 2 (Scottish Executive, 2007) aims to support professional’s understanding of Curriculum for Excellence and is specific to the early level. It emphasises the continuity of provision from early years settings into primary one, with a focus on play. It promotes play as a way to access the curriculum as a whole and advocates both teaching and child directed play to support the four capacities within a Curriculum for Excellence; Successful Learners, Confident Individuals, Responsible Citizens and Effective Contributors. It discusses research which has found no long-term advantages to focus on didactic teaching before age six or seven years. A 2001 evaluation of early interventions highlighted concerns over pressure on children and a lack of value of play in primary schools.

“There is a need to debate curriculum balance in the early stages of primary school and consider whether play and self-directed learning opportunities are underrepresented” (p.7).

It continues to examine the often-stark differences between nursery and school and how this could be damaging for some children, thus the need to have more continuity between these settings.

“It is important to achieve as much continuity as possible when children move from preschool settings to P1. Yet the learning and teaching approaches used in preschool education and in P1 often contrast sharply in emphasis”

Building the Curriculum 3 follows on to state “It is essential that the active approaches to learning continue in P1 and beyond. A collaborative approach is needed to ensure progression” (Scottish Government, 2008).

The Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Government, 2004) itself aimed to encourage a holistic approach to educational outcomes looking at the whole child development rather than purely academic outcomes. It is worth remembering the ‘Early Level’ encompasses both nursery and primary one environment.

The National Play Strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2013) promoted the importance of play, how to improve experiences and discusses the protection of play and looks at what actions need to be taken. Their aim is for Scotland to be the best place to grow up. It mentions not only play in early years settings but also in schools.

“All children and young people enjoy high quality play opportunities, particularly outdoor free play in stimulating spaces with access to nature, on a daily basis in school, nursery and early learning and childcare” (2013; 15).

To compliment the Play Strategy is the Play Types Toolkit: Bringing more play into the school day (Casey & Scott-McKie, 2017). It features a variety of play types and links their importance to learning and development, aiming to ease the integration of play into the school curriculum. It recognises that, for the children to access play, they need environments which are stimulating with accessible resources for varied experiences indoors and out. It discusses the need for supportive adults who understand, and value play experiences and the learning achieved through these. The toolkit advises professionals consider; Time, Environment, Resources and Permission (for trial and error, being able to work things out for themselves). It offers guidance for staff based on Hughes (2006) PlayTypes, linking specific types of play to curriculum outcomes, asserts some of the skills and benefits to each and provides examples of how these could be integrated into the school environment. One principle from the National Play Strategy is to ensure children realise their right to play.

Article 31.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child declares State Parties shall recognise the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. General comment No.17 (2013) stated concern of “the poor recognition given by States to the rights contained in Article 31.” This then “results in lack of investment in appropriate provisions, weak or non-existent protective legislation.” It states the importance of providing children time and space to “engage in spontaneous play, recreation and creativity, and to promote societal attitudes that support and encourage such activity.” Part III continues to promote the significance of Article 31 stating:

“Play and recreation are essential to the health and wellbeing of children and promote the development of creativity, imagination, self-confidence, self-efficacy, as well as physical, social, cognitive and emotional strength and skills. They contribute to all aspects of learning.” “Research evidence highlights that playing is also central to children’s spontaneous drive for development, and that it performs a significant role in the development of the brain, particularly in the early years.”

Registered teachers must comply with General Teaching Council Scotland’s mandatory requirements. These include “have secure knowledge and understanding of the methods and underlying theories for effective teaching of literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing; and effectively select the most appropriate methods to meet all learners’ needs.”

“Critically examining personal and professional attitudes and beliefs and challenging assumptions and professional practice.”

“Critically examining the connections between personal and professional attitudes and beliefs, values and practices to effect improvement and, when appropriate, bring about transformative change in practice” (GTCS, 2019).

In practice I have not seen evidence of teachers using or even knowing about the documents mentioned. A curriculum for Excellence is the main reference with teachers aiming to cover as many outcomes as possible before children move on to the next curriculum level in primary two. This study may raise awareness of the existing documents available to early years professionals.

Methodology

I believe my research to be of an ethnographic position. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007: 3) define in practice ethnography:

“usually involves the researcher participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, and/or asking questions through informal and formal interviews, collecting documents and artefacts- in fact gathering whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the emerging focus of inquiry.”

As indicated in my research proposal, my chosen methodology is that of a qualitative approach. After some deliberation, extending my engagement in literature on methodology my chosen methods were:

Informal one to one interview with the parents and the staff to understand their thoughts on play based learning and also with children to acknowledge their views of their learning experiences.

Child led experiences linked to literacy and numeracy to observe and evaluate their learning.

Classroom observations.

I had initially proposed to also observe in the nursery environment, but this was not possible due a lack of time and my manager did not allow me time out due to support staff absences which I was to cover.

I assumed qualitative methods that would be best to provide the depth of data required to answer my research questions. I aimed to involve participants as much as possible, whom this would have an effect on, so together we may influence positive change. This is in line with Cargo and Mercer’s view of qualitative approaches being “the collaboration of those affected by the issue being studied, for the purpose of education and of taking action or effecting change” (2008: 328). Denscombe agrees the aim is “to arrive at recommendations for good practice that will tackle a problem or enhance the performance of the organisation and individuals through changes to the rules and procedures within which they operate” (2010: 12). I felt it vital to represent each participant’s feedback as accurately as possible, without my own professional judgements influencing these. This required constant reflexivity as the researcher by continuously stepping back to ensure I was being as objective as possible and considering and reconsidering another people’s position.

Participatory processes can be seen as empowering to those involved, politicising and raising consciousness (Cahill, 2004; Cairns, 2006). These explanations fit with the aim of this piece of research.

I also considered including some quantitative methods which could then have been triangulated with the other data collection (Gallagher, 2009). However, due to the small scale of this project and the time constraints I decided against this. Quantitative methods may also have been limiting as this subject is not as easily measured by statistics (Blumer, 1954). This more scientific approach did not seem appropriate when researching with people in their daily lives.

I invited two teachers, four parents and four children within my workplace to participate. I intended to seek the opinions of a cross section of stakeholders while keeping numbers small and manageable within the time constraints for completion.

The teachers, who agreed to participate, both have a similar length of service and levels of experience in working with this age group. They have however, conflicting philosophies and attitudes, which influence their practice. I chose to invite parents, with whom I had already built positive relationships with and asked their permission to invite their children to participate.

I decided to use informal interviews to use a personal approach especially as we already had a positive professional relationship, although my role had to change in this instance, the basis of trust was still there. Bryman (2004) suggested interviews only take views in isolation, but for the purpose of this project I deem that to be a positive for privacy to engage in free discussion. I then, as a researcher can compare and contrast each individual view in the analysis process. I recorded each interview in order to transcribe and analyse this data with accuracy and to enable my full attention on the participant. The introduction of this created a short moment of discomfort initially but I reiterated, the recording would be solely for my use, kept secure and soon after deleted. I wanted to gain knowledge from the individual perspectives, feelings and experiences (Gallagher, 2009). I anticipated this method that would alert me to any themes and patterns of language used, emphasise on certain words or phrases, intonations of voice or any other social cues beyond what is actually being vocalised. I had deliberated over using questionnaires but wondered if the benefits described from engaging in dialogue would be missed.

I also believed conducting interviews would save time for participants and myself, however I had underestimated the time spent on transcribing the audio recording. On a practical level interviews with teachers took place in their own classroom in order for them to feel more comfortable and to help with this I brought tea and biscuits. When interviewing parents, we agreed a time which suited them and the school. I ensured we had a private space and created as a relaxed atmosphere as possible. I placed chairs around a circular table to have a feel of equality between us. I placed flowers on the table and offered refreshments to help each participant feel at ease. I had prepared some open-ended questions to support the extension of answers but also afforded the interview to flow more like a discussion, while keeping within the boundaries of the topic. I thanked each participant at the beginning and end of our discussions. I initially contemplated whether to offer the children a one to one interview, but a question posed by Punch “If children are competent social actors, why are ‘child-friendly’ methods needed to communicate with them?” (2002: 321) prompted me back to my principles that indeed children are competent social actors. Thus, I questioned why I would neglect to offer this to all participants. Cairns (2001) and Kellet et al. (2004) assert that children must be active participants in the process, if not researchers themselves. Davis (1998) notes that researchers must be reflexive when researching with children, critically reflective on their role and assumptions and when selecting methods and their processes. MacNaughton and Hughes (2008) and Bell (2010) noted that, observations only reveal half of the picture so I hoped interviews would support the study rather than solely rely on my interpretation of observations.

The additional methods used were participant observation and activities with children during class times. I did not feel this was intrusive as it was usual for me to be in their space at times, albeit not in the role of researcher. I was considered an ‘insider,’ Hockey describes “insiders are able to blend into situations, making them less likely to alter the research setting” (1993: 204). As per the information on the consent form and my reiterating this to each participant the children were aware, they could opt out at any time.

Ethical Considerations

Prior to beginning this project, I submitted an ethical consideration form, examples of the information sheet for participants and their consent forms in order to obtain approval to commence. This highlighted my ethical responsibilities to all participants. I promised to protect their confidentiality and anonymity through the use of pseudonyms and reassuring them, that no information shall be included which could identify them or the institution. I made participants aware they could opt out at any time without having to provide a reason (Lancaster and Broadbent, 2003). I assured participants that the audio recordings and any other data was for my sole use, these would be stored securely until destroyed (Morrow and Richards, 1996). I ensured each person understood and agreed to the conditions through the written information and consent forms which I personally provided, and I reiterated this information verbally before beginning.

I gained consent from my line manager and ‘gatekeeper’ before inviting any of the participants. Her initial support declined, when I undertook the project which I shall discuss in the findings section. I presented the details of the project explaining what it would entail. I then discussed my project with the team and gained the informed consent from the two teachers invited. Everyone was supportive of the project and together we worked out a timetable of when was suitable to carry out my research. I had to consult with the wider school community to gain access to the library space for my interviews and ensure these would be uninterrupted. I placed sign on the door to indicate the room was in use.

As I intimated in my ethics form, I considered there may be possible impacts on the children within the process. I was concerned about possible power relations between myself as a researcher and the children, however I explained the change in my role and gained their informed consent in a clear a meaningful manner. I also attempted to make them as active as possible throughout the project, continually updating them. Their protection was priority and I was considerate of children’s rights at all times, using a reflexive approach.

I considered my ethical tariff at Level 2: Applies to non-intervention research where you have the consent of the participants and data subjects. This may include, for example, analysis of archived data, classroom observation, or questionnaires on topics that are not generally considered ‘sensitive’. This research can involve children or young people, if the likelihood of risk to them is minimal.

I deemed it unlikely however when working with children there is always a possibility of disclosure. If this were to happen, I would have worked within the child protection guidelines of the setting. I included details of this within the informed consent to ensure all participants were aware of procedures in the event of a disclosure (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004).

I was conscious that issues may arise surrounding staff and our professional relationships, while conducting the project. I was aware that, the questions or findings may cause unrest. I trust I was considerate and respectful of my colleagues throughout as their opinions are important and valued in this study. I expressed that, I valued their professionalism and knowledge and strived to protect our professional relationships assuring this was a mutual learning process. I explained in my role as a researcher, I must remain neutral therefore being an ‘outsider’ and an ‘insider.’ This also means I must approach the analysis of data in an unbiased manner (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009). Although Davis claims reflective practitioners must acknowledge they have “two voices at work in their head and that there may be many different cultural voices amongst the people they study” (1998: 331). Thus, I kept this in mind when reflecting on my conduct and how well I was protecting the participants.

I also believe, I remained considerate of parents, acknowledging their opinions were an important part of the study and any data remained confidential. I was aware of the possibility of a power imbalance between myself as a researcher and my interviewees however I made effort for this not to be the case (Morrow, 1999).

I was careful to be reflective, ensuring participants were not misrepresented. I aimed to protect them and the establishments anonymity throughout, to ensure the findings cannot be used against them if used by any other source.

Findings and Discussion

Staff: Interviews and Class Observation

Interviews may cause participants to feel apprehensive as Kellehear declares they are the “creation of an unnatural situation introduced by researchers for the purpose of polite interrogation” (1996: 98). O’Leary (2009) and Basch highlight encouraging a “trusting, comfortable and secure climate” to put people at ease (1985: 433). It seemed that the participants felt comfortable to engage in open honest dialogue.

I was unable to gather as much data as intended due to my managers decision to remove me from primary one to place me in a primary three class when there were staff absences. I then subsequently left this job. Wax (1971) suggested that, the problems may arise, determined by the gatekeepers view of the research, therefore blocking access to interviews. However, from the data I did collect, I translated the varied results into the main themes of trust, control, accessibility and accountability.

Trust

I interpreted trust as an issue, trust that learning can be achieved through play, trust in the children and in themselves. Lahno suggested that, “trust should be at the heart of any genuine educational setting” (2001: 184).

Participant A commented “I can’t trust them to play, the behaviour is too disruptive when I’m trying to teach at the same time. There are too many distractions.”

In contrast participant B stated that, “we have to trust in the process and now when I actually see what the children are doing it’s obvious what they gain from their play.” She has evolved towards this, initially feeling “worried” having come from a “more formalised environment.” She reflected:

“I was thinking of everything; I am covering all experiences and outcomes? Are the children all learning? I had to remap my brain. But now I can see what they’re learning I can see how happy they are. I’ve totally changed my philosophy, I’ve gone full circle from not understanding it, not thinking it worked to loving it.”

“It is definitely a process of letting go of the control and a mindset, but now I’d never go back.”

Mayall (2001) believed that, a movement in people’s thinking can happen if children are taken seriously, then they become competent social actors. Malone suggested that “It is useful to ask whose needs and values are privileged and supported” (2002: 167).

Participant B expressed that, she encourages children to “have a go at things and not worry about making mistakes, feeling free to explore.” She noticed children “have flown (in their learning) because they’re ready.”

Issues of trust then impacts on how the children access play within their classrooms.

Control, Accessibility and Accountability

The structures and routines in place mirrored the individual teacher’s philosophies, the image they hold of the child and their concept of play. Both classrooms were similar in layout, as well as many tables there were role play areas, sand trays, art areas, small construction and book corners, however the children’s access to these were dependant on routines and permissions. Participant B’s class could, mainly, choose where to play and who to play with. Most areas have easily accessible resources at child level for self-selection. The children had short sessions of whole class or small group teaching but otherwise free play. The children were well engaged and navigating their social space with support when required. Participant A’s classroom was more regulated with limited access to resources and their routine was carefully planned around a carousel of literacy and numeracy activities, whole class or small group teaching. I noticed that, the children were engaged with their activity for a short time then became disinterested, some were fidgeting, trying to converse with their neighbour or mark make of their own agenda on the worksheets. The routine was robust, yet inflexible and did not afford children to engage in creative pursuits unless they were adult led art activities. Participant A stated that:

“I like to feel in control of the classroom. I like to be organised and know exactly what I’m doing. I also need to reinforce their learning. It should be literacy at literacy time and numeracy at numeracy time.”

Pike (2008) noted that, schools are spaces in which children are managed via socio spatial procedures. Christensen and James (2001) suggested that, the teachers control the space and organisation which in turn form children’s experiences.

Baker (1987) proposes people need time to adapt their mindset, practice and relationships to any changes made.

Participant B commented that, she had to learn how to observe children in their play to be responsive to interests “before everything was adult led, all topics and activities were based on adult ideas, mostly using worksheets and meaningless paper.” Howard (2010) suggested that, how and where play is carried out in schools is partly contingent on how teachers perceive their role in play. Sandberg states that “teachers should be sensitive, observant and engaged but should not control, decide or interrupt play” (2002: 21).

Both participants asserted to having no training to support them. Participant B confessed to “having to wing it.” Participant A expressed that, “We’ve just been told to get on with it. No training, no resources, nothing.” Moyles et al. (2002) pose that many primary teachers are uncertain as to how to plan for a play-based curriculum. The concept of teaching and supporting learning is often in conflict with a play pedagogy (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009).

This continued to the topic of resources in relation to accessibility, one being human resources. The main difference between nursery settings and school is the ratio of adults to children to ensure the smooth running of a free play environment. Nursery settings have a ratio of one adult to ten children whereas a primary one class is, at most, one to twenty-five.

Participant A questioned “How can you successfully do play based learning with you as one teacher and without it being resourced properly?”

She expressed concern about the expectation for children to be at a certain stage within literacy and numeracy and to feeling “anxious” about the tests at the end of the year as the management had reminded her “the results are published.”

Participant B commented “It can’t all be play, we need some direct teaching to cover all the expected outcomes. We do need to evidence learning.”

Kennison (1976) argued that, schools are appraised on reading results instead of the people they produce.

Ball (2003:148) claims teachers are “subject to a myriad of judgements, measures, comparisons and targets. Information is collected continuously, recorded and published…to make us continually accountable.” He suggests this brings “uncertainty and instability.”

There are some authors who dispute the advantages of play based learning (Lillard et al., 2013) as observed in my setting, there is some dubiety toward the advantages of this. Perhaps, the authoritarian practices stem back to that of the cultural transmission theorists whereby children require knowledge to be transmitted Pratt (2002). Such as the historical concept of the immanent child theorised by Locke who described children’s minds as a ‘tablua rasa’ meaning a blank slate to be written on, or the empty vessel needing educated (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). This is teacher centred, children are seen but not heard (Haydey, Zakaluk and Straw, 2010).

It may even be the notion of childhood socialisation, lacking an understanding of children’s agency as competent beings influencing these practices, for example Shamgar-Handelman’s belief in the social construction of childhood, suggesting it is the state society’s duty to mould children into appropriate adults. The school then, is to prepare children for their future selves, based on the values of the people in power, James, Jenks and Prout (1998). Mayall (2000) proposes children are viewed as at a “preparatory stage, rather than participatory; so, we seclude them in institutions and implement programmes towards conformity” (p.251).

The multi model teaching methods observed at times and in one class in particular, may be more reflective of constructivist thinkers, where the adult is there to ‘scaffold’ learning.

Interviews with Parents

The parents had mixed feelings towards a play approach. Three participants stated initially they were “concerned,” or “unsure.” They each stated a lack of understanding and two reflected on their own school experiences. Alison wanted her child to have the same “classic” experience, yet Sam “wished” she had experienced this model. Fiona worried her child would be “bored” and “not challenged enough.” She liked “structure” and expressed “I’m even more sceptical of it because this is their first year doing it. It maybe needed a change, but it seems too drastic to have a complete overhaul.” Peacock (1987) comments on the unfortunate fact that play has so many definitions leading to parents being cynical of its importance. It often evokes thoughts of insignificance, the antithesis of work, in the context of children’s learning it is far from serious thinking and purposeful learning (Brierley, 1987).

Sam, contrastingly, described “it’s not been such a big change coming from nursery to be sitting at a desk. I think it’ll make them more mature to deal with formal learning later.”

Alison commented “I was initially worried about the lack of formal teaching, but I think it’s still happening. Emma comes home with worksheets and her jotter.”

Children’s Thoughts

I conducted one informal interview with Adam, which turned out to be short as he soon indicated a desire to return to class. The other discussions were in the classroom as the children played. Hill (2006) suggested that, children may feel more comfortable, when they are with their friends and they outnumber the researcher. Similar themes were evident from the children’s thoughts as were found in the staff analysis.

Accessibility and Control

The children appeared view play and learning as disconnected, except Oliver who commented “we’re playing right now, but working” while he played a counting game. There were mixed responses regarding their school experiences, some children enjoyed the formal approaches, while others are perhaps not quite ready, vocalising their preference to play. There were many comments relating to how the children accessed play and control over this. Adam explained “Most times we’re not allowed to play. I just like to draw. Why don’t they just get paper like nursery?” “You have to do more work in school. I do like to learn but I like to play best.” Oliver “We have to do all the work and sit down all day. I like to stand up.” Lena “We have a timetable of what we do all day. I do not like it when we work, I only like when we play. The only parts I like are break and lunch outside.” Emma “All I like is playing and songs. There are these counting songs the teacher picks a number and we go down to a smaller number and back. It’s quite hard.” Davis (2018) suggests that, being formal too soon, early “schoolification,” blocks creativity. Holt (1975) suggested that, some children resist formal teaching as it diminishes their independence and belief in their own capabilities to work things out for themselves. Again, this suggests children learn best when in control of their own learning.

Oliver, although his preference is to stand, he reported with enthusiasm for learning “I like learning letters and numbers. I’m very good at it. I can count in my head; I know what two and two is. I know how to spell my name.” There were positive comments about their individual jotters, perhaps one area they have ownership and control over. Adam “We do numbers in our jotters. I like numbers. I’ve run out of paper in mine.” Lena “We learn letters you can see in our special books you have to draw letters. We’ve done up to Z.” Emma “We do sounds in our sound booklet; we’ve got one each to write sentences in. We have a reading book at our homes and school.”

Experiential Learning

Through observation and conversation, I supported the children to enhance areas of learning from their interests which linked to multiple outcomes in the curriculum. One example stemmed from children comparing their heights. By adding a meter stick, measuring tapes and rulers the children measured each other and objects around the room. They recorded these on a large piece of paper displayed on the wall, mark making their own name at their height. One child made his own meter stick by connecting sheets of paper “I’m making it long. I’m doing all the numbers up to a hundred”. This inspired others to do the same. They compared varying measurements, there was evidence of rich mathematical language such as “bigger” “smaller” “taller” “higher” “you’re one hundred!” and so on. I could hear some children counting as they moved their hands from their peers’ feet up to their head. The children then measured their constructions. They often counted how many blocks they had used.

One literacy ‘activity’ came from children’s interest in books, re telling stories and making up their own narratives. Two children had shown an interest in making their own books. So, I simply provided some materials to aid this, a stapler, cellotape and a selection of paper, which would not normally be accessible. I placed some books and jotters in the same area. One book created was the three little pigs. Each page was numbered from one to ten with pictures and ‘words.’ Adam asked “Do you want to read it? This says be careful of the big bad wolf” indicating the marks made on the page of random letters. He then directed me to some dots on the first page “Do you see these dots? They tell you how many weeks the books been made.” He counts from one to seventeen dots which represent the number of weeks his book has been published from. “It is the first book in the world to be made!” Oliver created a colouring book with various animal forms to colour. Emma created a book about her family containing detailed illustrations of each member and their family home with many letters scribing her story. Adam and Emma carried this interest on the following day, puppets were created for a show which they set up a stage for and made tickets. The tickets indicated the cost and were sold to fellow classmates which saw the exchange of ‘money’ when purchasing their tickets. This generated interest from many others in the class who subsequently took part and together they told amusing stories to their audience.

Providing these small examples may help redefining the concepts of play and its role in literacy and numeracy acquisition. It may contribute demonstrating children as empowered, social actors, who can direct their own purposeful learning.

Conclusion

Through this study, I endeavoured to explore how play in primary one is implemented in my setting. There was growing divide between two classrooms and some uncertainty towards play facilitating learning, particularly within literacy and numeracy. Through class room observation and informal interviews I sought to understand teacher’s feelings, their concerns or benefits they see of this approach. I wanted to hear parent’s thoughts and children’s views of their learning experiences. I aimed to remain neutral as a researcher and create a safe context for open dialogue, which I believe was achieved. I interpreted from the findings, themes of trust, control, accessibility and accountability related to adapting to this approach. Through observing children’s interests and carrying out experiential activities with them I hoped to demonstrate that curriculum outcomes in literacy and numeracy could be achieved to compliment formal teaching. I was unable to gather as much data as I had hoped for, however from the data collected I believe, there are links to the theory in the literature review.

Resulting from this study, awareness could be raised of some prominent theory and documents such as Building the Ambition (2014) and Building the Curriculum (2007, 2008) and The PlayTypes Toolkit (Casey & Scott-McKie, 2017) to support the professionals. Teachers may benefit from further training to upskill their current wealth of knowledge and to reassure their confidence in embedding play. There could additionally be more collaborative work with early years professionals. The school could invite parents in to discuss and inform them of the ethos behind a play approach so they too can have a better understanding and alleviate any anxieties. It may be helpful to open discussion and raise the issues identified in the study with management in order to address these as a team. It is clear all professionals have the same aim of educating children, giving them the knowledge and skills, they require in life. This project may simply offer an opportunity to look at learning through an alternative lens. O’Leary (2009: 3) claimed that, the research is a method to “help us improve our world.”

If consideration is given, from a children’s rights perspective, to the environment, the image of the child, and relevant theory I believe children can thrive as competent leaders in their own learning, if afforded the trust and opportunity to do so.

“Perhaps play would be more respected if we called it something like ‘self -motivated practice of life skills’ but that would remove the light-heartedness from it and thereby reduce its effectiveness. So, we are stuck with the paradox. We must accept play’s triviality in order to realise its profundity.” (Gray, 2013).

References

Abbott, L. and Nutbrown, C. (2001) Experiencing Reggio Emilia: Implications for Preschool Provision. Open University. Buckingham.

Ball, S.J. (2003) The Teachers Soul and the Terrors of Performativity. Journal of Education Policy. 18 (2) 215-28.

Baker, S.L. (1987). Managing Resistance to Change. In: Ruben.R. (ed) (1987). Critical issues in library personnel management. Urbana, II: Graduate School of Library and Information Technology: 53-61.

Bell, J. (2005) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for first time researchers in Education, Health and Social Science 4th ed. Open University. Maidenhead.

Bergen, D. (2009) ‘Play as the Learning Medium for Future Scientists, Mathematicians, and Engineers.’ American Journal of Play. 1. 4: 413-428

Burghardt, GM. (2005) The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing limits. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cairns, L. (2006) ‘Participation with Purpose’ In: Tisdall, E.K.M., Davis, J.M., Hill, M. and Prout, A. (eds) Children, Young people and Social Inclusion: Participation for What? Policy Press. Bristol.

Christensen, P and James, A., (2001) What are Schools for? The temporal experience of children’s learning in Northern England. In Alanen, L and Mayall, B. eds. Conceptualising child-adult relations. London Routledge/Falmer.

Davis, J.M. (2018) BACP Conference; Creative Pedagogy of the Future. The University of Edinburgh.

Dwyer, S.C. and Buckle, J.L. (2009) The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 54-63.

Gallagher, M. (2009) ‘Data Collection and Analysis’. In: Tisdall, E.K.M., Davis, J.M. and Gallagher, M. Researching with Children and Young People: Research Design, Methods and Analysis. Sage. London.

Gray, P. (2013) Free to Learn. How unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant and students for life. Basic Books.

Hockey, J. (1993) Research methods ‐‐ researching peers and familiar settings. Research Papers in Education, 8 (2) 199-225.

Isaacs, S (1932) The Children We Teach University of London Press. London.

Jenvey, V.B. and Jenvey, H.L. (2002) ‘Criteria Used to Categorise Children’s Play: Preliminary Findings’ Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal. 30 (8) 733-740.

Kellett. M., Forrest, R., Dent, N. and Ward, S. (2004) ‘Just teach us the skills please we’ll do the rest: Empowering Ten-Year-Olds as Active Researchers’, Children and Society. 18 (5) 329-43.

Lancaster, Y, & Broadbent, V, (2003) Listening to Young Children. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

MacNaughton, G. and Hughes, P. (2008) Doing Action Research in Early Childhood Studies. Open University Press. England.

Mayall, B. (2000) The Sociology of Childhood and Children’s Rights in The International Journal of Children’s Rights 2000. Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands.

Morrow, V. & Richards M. (1996) The Ethics of Social Research with Children: An Overview. Children & Society, 10; 90-105.

Palmer, S. and Bailey, R. (2008) Foundations in Literacy: A balanced approach to language, listening and literacy skills in the early years. 3rd ed. Continuum International Publishing Group. London.

Piaget, J. (1955) The Child’s Construction of Reality. Routledge. London.

Punch, S. (2002) Research with Children: The Same or Different from Research with Adults? Childhood. 9 (3) 321-41.

Samuel, M. (2003) How Can I Develop the Outdoor Area to Enhance Children’s Learning? Early Childhood Practice: The journal for Multi-Professional Partnerships 5 (2) 44-65.

Steiner, R. (2002). The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy. (Transl. G& M Adams, Dornach, Switzerland, Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung,

Walksler, F.C. (1991) Beyond Socialisation, Studying the Social Worlds of Children. Sociological Readings Falmer. London.

Whitehead, M (2002) Developing Language and Literacy with Young Children 2nd ed. Paul Chapman Publishing. London.

Yetzes, J. (2003) Understanding the journey of visual representation: How can we effectively support children’s drawing development and early literacy? Early Childhood Practice. 5 (2) 81-97.

Yogman, M., Garner, A. Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K. and Golinkoff, R.M. Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Council on Communications and Media (2018) The Power of Play: A Paediatric Role in Enhancing Development in Young Children. American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Report. 142 (3)