explanatory rubric for play in early childhood

EXPLANATORY RUBRIC FOR PLAY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD

To Save Play, We Must Precisely Define It:

An Explanatory Rubric for Play in Early Childhood

Charlotte Wright

International Educational Development

Teachers College, Columbia University

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Masters of Education in

International Educational Development at Teachers College, Columbia University.

EXPLANATORY RUBRIC FOR PLAY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD (ERPEC) 2

Abstract

This paper describes how an Explanatory Rubric for Play in Early Childhood (ERPEC) was

designed to address the elusive nature of play definitions in the early childhood field. The

ERPEC describes a three-tiered taxonomic structure – Play Categories, Play Domains, and Social

Interaction Distinctions of Play – which provides the language necessary for play experiences in

early childhood to be precisely named and defined, while still honoring important nuances in

how play may materialize. Literature was reviewed and existing play definitions, categories and

types were synthesized and organized to create the ERPEC. With the uniform language structure

that the ERPEC provides, the early childhood field will be able to make more reliable

connections between characteristics of certain play experiences and specific learning and

development outcomes. Play in early childhood can be more effectively practiced and advocated

for when these connections are made. As education systems around the world are increasingly

bolstering their early childhood programs, while also simultaneously focusing on building

systems of accountability which favor teacher-directed learning, we are at critical juncture in

defending a child’s right to play. To defend play, we must know what we are defending – the

ERPEC offers the language needed to do this.

Keywords: play; children; early childhood; schoolification; play definitions; play scales;

play types


Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….….4

Rationale and Significance ……………………………………………………………….7

Background……………………………………………………………………………………......8

The Power of Play ………………………………………………………………………...8

Schoolification…………………………………………………………………………...10

Lack of Definition and Classification of Play……………………………………………12

Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………………..14

Review and Organization of the Literature………………………………………………15

Feedback…………………………………………………………………………………17

Research Assumptions, Limitations, and Positionality…………………………………..18

The Design of the ERPEC……………………………………………………………………….19

Overarching Definition of Play…………………………………………………………..19

Play Categories ………………………………………………………………………….23

Play Domains…………………………………………………………………………….34

Social Interaction Distinctions of Play…………………………………………………..41

Putting it All Together: Play Scenarios and the ERPEC………………………………………...44

Feedback Considerations………………………………………………………………………...45

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………50

References ……………………………………………………………………………………….53

Appendix: Presenting the Explanatory Rubric for Play in Early Childhood (ERPEC)………….63


Introduction

Due to a global push for accountability measured by assessment, early childhood

education (ECE) worldwide is increasingly favoring the schoolification of education for young

children (Brogaard, 2015; Brown, 2009; Fuller, 2007; Gunnarsdottir, 2014; Miller & Almon,

2009; Pyle & Danniels, 2017). The schoolification of early childhood most often includes

pedagogy that is in stark contrast to how the literature defines what is necessary for the healthy

development of young children (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Hassinger-Das et al., 2017; Kostelnik,

2015; Miller & Almon, 2009). Indeed, symptoms of this schoolification epidemic include more

rigid curriculum standards and less time for what is considered a cornerstone of early childhood1,

play (Brogaard Clausen, 2015, p.358; UNESCO, 2010; Ring & O’Sullivan, 2018).

Both developmental theorists and early childhood scholars alike emphasize the

importance of play for young children’s learning and development (Elkind, 2008; Kostelnik,

2015; Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). The significance of play in child development is also

reflected in the National Association of the Education of Young Children’s Developmentally

Appropriate Practice Position Statements throughout history (1987; 1996; 2009). These position

statements value play as an important indicator of quality and a key component of

developmentally appropriate early childhood settings. Not only do developmental theorists and

scholars agree that play is crucial for young children’s healthy development, according to the

United Nations, children also have the right to play (UNCRC, 1990).

But what is play, really? Although education thought leaders, scholars, psychologists,

and philosophers agree that play is important for young children, there are tremendous

discrepancies in how the concept is defined and the language used to describe how it manifests.

1 Early childhood is defined as the period from birth to eight years old (Kostelnik, 2015).


All agree that play is nuanced, but disagreement and confusion remain about the subtleties that

make play, play. The difficult task of defining play is cited as a reason for the lack of extensive

research on the topic and consequently, also evidence that supports its impact on young children

(Bowman, Donovan & Burns, 2001). As the early childhood sector rapidly expands around the

world and schoolification becomes more common (Ang, 2014), an established taxonomy that

allows all stakeholders to precisely name and define different play experiences, while still

capturing nuances, could help protect play’s important role in the classroom.

In this study, I examined how play’s elusive nature may be overcome through a clear, yet

detailed way to conceptualize it in early childhood. I explored how play in early childhood is

defined and categorized in the literature. Literature findings were organized into straightforward

and accessible distinctions, which offer a taxonomy for naming and defining play experiences.

The taxonomy is presented and described in an Explanatory Rubric for Play in Early Childhood

(ERPEC) (Appendix A). With the ERPEC, both researchers and teachers can observe a play

experience and be better-equipped to accurately record what they witness without simply calling

it “play” or having to describe it in great length. When both researchers and teachers are using

the same language to name and define certain types of play, there will be more consistent and

reliable evidence that not only supports play’s general importance, but also illustrates what kind

of play experiences may yield particular learning and development outcomes for children.

Iterative in nature, this study consisted of cycles of literature review, the application of

literature findings to my design of the ERPEC, the alteration of the ERPEC according to new

findings and the collection and application of feedback from early childhood professionals.

I began the study by exploring the overarching research question: How is play in early

childhood defined in the literature? After initial literature review, I devised more specific


research questions: How is play in early childhood categorized in the literature?; What are the

different types of play described in the literature? How do these types overlap or connect to one

another? How do these types relate to domains of learning and development? and; How is social

interaction during play discussed in the literature? Within the larger construct of play, I also

explored several sub-constructs that relate to how different types of play can be distinguished.

These include: the role of the adult during play, the role of the child during play, the role of the

materials during play, the motivation source for play, and the domains of learning and

development targeted during play.

I will describe how the ERPEC that I designed addresses an urgent gap in the early

childhood field - a consistent and organized way to name and define play experiences in a way

that preserves its nuances. I will outline how the ERPEC reflects the current literature through

consideration and organization of existing play definitions, categories, types (which ERPEC

refers to as “Play Domains”) and social interaction distinctions of play. Next, I will present the

feedback that I received from twelve early childhood professionals on the ERPEC, and how the

rubric was altered according to this feedback. Finally, I will share plans for dissemination and

publication.

Rationale and Significance

Although there are many published definitions of play, along a handful of play types and

several published continuums related to play, a clear and accessible tool which explicates and

consistently names the various ways that play in early childhood can materialize, is lacking and

urgently needed. Without this, there is no way to consistently speak about play, research the

concept and consequently, effectively argue for the important role it holds in a child’s learning


and development.

Many will argue against the operationalization of play in early childhood settings,

perhaps stating that it is not meant to be measured, or that operationalizing the concept poses a

threat to the common belief that children have the right to “play for plays sake” (Ashiabi, 2007;

Brown, 2009; Broström, 2017). But as education systems around the world are increasingly

formalizing their early childhood programs, while also simultaneously focusing on building

systems of accountability, we are at a critical juncture in the movement to protect play’s place in

early childhood (Harlin & Brown, 2012).

If we are to meet the demands of the changing early childhood education policy and

practice landscape, the concept of play in early childhood education can no longer be used as an

ambiguous, solitary word. This paper presents the first step needed to address the evolving

demands which put play’s place at risk. By organizing current literature on play to operationalize

the term into clear, meaningful categories and domains, the ERPEC provides the common

language and framework needed to precisely study, speak, and write about play in early

childhood, both formally — in research and policy — and informally — in the classroom. All the

while, the taxonomic system of the ERPEC still honors play’s fluid nature by including names

and definitions for the myriad ways that it can materialize.

The ERPEC will allow for there to be a more unified message of what kind of play

should be advocated for in formal early childhood settings. It may aid early childhood leaders to

more appropriately advise and support teachers in the type of play included in their curriculum

and pedagogy. Furthermore, the ERPEC is an illustration of the diverse ways that play can

materialize, leading to a greater understanding of what play may look like to the greater public.


Background

The Power of Play

For decades, those that study and advocate for children have argued that play is the most

productive way for young children to holistically develop and learn. Play enables children to

develop their soft skills and can be a powerful vehicle for children’s acquisition of new hard

skills and knowledge. Play is also essential for a child’s physical development and health

(Brown, 2009; Lester, & Russell, 2010).

Through play, young children can develop in several important areas, including:

language, executive functions, mathematics and spatial skills, scientific thinking, and social and

emotional development (Brown, 2009; Sahlberg & Doyle, 2019). Play has the potential to foster

optimal learning for children since it can reflect what the science of learning theory argues: that

children learn best when they are mentally active, engaged, socially interactive and making

connections (Hassinger-Das, Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2017). Play also allows children to learn

how to self-regulate through the opportunity to pursue their own ideas from start to finish

(Bodrova, Gemeroth, Leong, 2013; Miller & Almon, 2009).

Play is inextricably tied to theories of cognitive development posed by renowned child

psychologists: Piaget, Vygotsky and Elkonin. Jean Piaget submitted that play is crucial to a

child’s assimilation into the world and his progressive forms of play illustrate his belief that play

behavior can serve as an indicator child’s level of cognitive intelligence (Broström, 2017; Reilly,

1974). Lev Vygotsky believed that play itself is a source of development, as it creates the zone of

proximal development (ZPD), the space between what children can do independently and what

they cannot do, which allows them to move on to the next stage of learning and development


(Bodrova, Germeroth, & Leong, 2013). From a Vygotskian perspective, play is crucial to a

child’s ability to overcome inherent impulsiveness and develop mature behavior and thought

(Bodrova, Germeroth, & Leong, 2013). Daniel Elkonin, Vygotsky’s student, defined play as “the

leading activity, the activity in which children master a variety of mental tools necessary for

them to function successfully in a modern society,” (Bodrova & Leong, 2015, p. 377).

These theories are supported in more recent empirical research. Some studies have found

that children who are in playful classrooms – active classrooms where children have agency and

dynamic interactions with adults - had better outcomes in cognitive and language development

than those who were in teacher-directed classrooms (Montie, Xiang, & Schweinhart, 2006;

Huffman & Speer, 2000). More specifically, Huffman and Speer (2000) found that child-

centered, less structured approaches yielded better results in letter and word identification and

applied problems than didactic approaches did in an impoverished early childhood setting. A

study by Fisher et al. (2013) found that children who were taught shapes using guided play

showed more improved shape knowledge compared to those taught in free play or didactic

instruction. In another study, children who were in playful classrooms were found to be more

motivated and confident in their learning and less dependent on their teacher (Stipek, Feiler,

Daniels & Milburn, 1995). These studies show promising results, however, there is a dire need

for more evidence that supports play in early childhood classrooms and is clear about how play is

defined in the study so that connections can be made between the specifics of the play experience

and the positive outcome.

Schoolification

There is a growing concern from early childhood advocates around the globe that early


childhood is experiencing a schoolification epidemic. Schoolification is a term used to describe

the erosion of developmentally appropriate practice2 in early childhood classrooms as elementary

school pedagogy and curriculum, and the academic pressure that comes along with it, trickle

down to preschool and kindergarten (UNESCO, 2010). With increased academic pressures, there

is diminishing time for play in early childhood classrooms.

A study done by Bassok, Latham and Roem (2016) found that teachers in 2010 were

much more likely to agree that children should arrive at kindergarten having already experienced

academic instruction than teachers just over a decade prior. These same teachers were also far

less likely to describe implementing forms of playful pedagogy. Play in these kindergarten

classrooms seemed to be absent due to an increase in teacher-directed literacy and math content

instruction. The authors noted that they observed topics covered in literacy and math instruction

that were traditionally taught in higher grades. Although the change from playful to teacher-

directed pedagogy was found to be “pervasive” overall, it was even more so in schools serving

low-income and non-White students (Bassok et al., 2016, p. 14).

Some may argue that the shift from play to teacher-directed learning in early childhood

makes sense as children are being tested at younger ages (Bassok et al., 2016). Early academics

may aid a child’s learning, especially if they need to catch up to their peers who are academically

ahead of them (Magnuson, Ruhm & Waldfogel, 2007). Studies have also suggested that early

grade academic skills to be the best predictor of later success (Claessens, Duncan, & Engel,

2009; Claessens & Engel, 2013). As early childhood is increasingly integrated into formal

education, schoolification may be a natural phenomenon, especially if education leaders have

2 Developmentally appropriate practice is teaching practice that is “age appropriate”, “individually appropriate” and

“socially and culturally appropriate” (Kostelnik, 2015, p.19-21).


little experience in early childhood education or knowledge of child development (Lowenberg,

2016).

However, most early years advocates assert that the academic pressures that come with

schoolification are both harmful and unproductive (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Fuller, 2007;

Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). Some go so far as to say that schoolification is

“potentially abusive” and “presents a serious threat” to a child’s healthy development (Brown,

2009, p. 99; Ring & O’Sullivan, 2018, p. 402). When school consists of rigid academics for

young children, it can cause stress and reduce a child’s motivation, self-confidence, and affinity

for school (Jones & Reynolds, 2011; Stipek, 2006). Heckman, known for his research on the

economic returns that early childhood intervention can yield, argues that a focus on academics in

early childhood is unproductive since the benefits of early childhood education are derived from

non-cognitive and social and emotional support it can provide (Heckman, Krueger, & Friedman,

2004).

Not only can schoolification be tragic for young children, but it also poses a threat to

society at large. Without play, the creative and independent thinking necessary for a thriving

democracy and economy would not exist (Miller & Almon, 2009). Play is what enables the

inventions of new technology, as the children who play are the people grow up with the ability to

build answers to hard problems (Brown, 2009). Indeed, many companies across industries

recognize this and are increasingly favoring playful workspaces (Petelczyc, 2018). Furthermore,

an absence of play in the early years may be related to poorer life outcomes: a High/Scope

Educational Research Foundation study found that low-income children who attended a more

schoolified, “scripted”, preschool had higher rates of incarceration than those who attended a

preschool program with more play (Miller & Almon, 2009, p. 49).


Some researchers argue that there is room for a balance between play and teacher-

directed learning in early childhood classrooms (Bassok et al., 2016; Miller & Almon, 2009).

However, finding this balance can be a challenge for teachers, particularly with competing

pressures to lean heavy on academics in the classroom. With schoolification, comes a rise in

“narrowly defined school standards'' for early childhood classrooms. These standards are likely

to lead to the transfer of the definitions and standards from older grades, as they are already

present and leadership may be ill-equipped to frame standards for early childhood (UNESCO,

2010, p. 119). This suggests that if play remains a concept that escapes specific definitions, it

seems unlikely that it will endure the schoolification epidemic.

Lack of Definition and Classification of Play

If those closest to children, those that understand child development and those that study

how the brain works, defend the importance of play in childhood, why is schoolification and its

teacher-directed approach dominating early childhood classrooms around the world? Perhaps the

answer lies in the fact that disagreement and confusion remain about what play means, how it

can be classified and how it should look in classrooms. For hundreds of years theorists have

debated the definition of play, yet it remains “as elusive as the wind”, “a concept that everyone

and no one understands” (Sutton-Smith, 1997; Reilly, 1974, p. 58; Bergen, 1988, p. 10). With

this ambiguity, comes difficulties in defending play: How can something that is poorly

conceptualized be defended? Play as an elusive term has left much of the world, including those

in power, to question how important it really is or to ignore it completely.

Variation in conceptualizations of play leads to an inability to prove its importance,

effectively advocate for its place in schools, and perhaps even worse, to be effectively practiced


in classrooms. The poor conceptualization of play amongst thought leaders has trickled down to

cause similar confusions among administrators, teachers, and parents. Since there is little

consistent language surrounding the term “play”, parents and educators often mischaracterize

play as “simply having fun” and therefore, as something that has no place in school. Play is

increasingly seen as an “enemy of learning”, frivolous and a waste of learning time (Brown,

2009, p.101; Elkind, 2008).

Even if play is not seen as a waste of time by school leaders and educators, studies have

shown that there are “wide variations in what teachers and principals mean by play” (Miller &

Almon, 2009, p. 25). Some teachers and administrators think that they practice play pedagogy in

their early childhood classrooms, but, in actuality, these activities described as play are teacher-

directed and lack core tenets of play that contribute to learning (Miller & Almon, 2009). Most

early childhood educators will say that play is important, but they often do not understand the

difference between free, imaginative play and more structured play, which leads to an imbalance

in the types of play practiced in classrooms (Miller & Almon, 2009). Furthermore, play that does

remain in schools is play that serves “utilitarian ends”, such as organized sports or teacher or

technology-led learning games (Elkind, 2008, p. 1; Brown, 2009).

It makes sense that there are such variations in what educators and parents mean by play

because the term play encompasses myriad experiences. Play is children pretending to be

“explorers” in the woods with their neighbors. It is children engaging in a teacher-led math game

at school. It is children competing in a soccer game. It is children using plastic utensils to “cook

dinner” in the dramatic play center at school. It is children inventing new words and languages.

There will continue to be confusion and misconceptions about play if these different types of

experiences are simply termed “play” or described in great length. This project seeks to mitigate


confusions by providing an organized way to name and define play. The taxonomy for naming

and defining play, as detailed by the ERPEC, honors the various ways that play can materialize

through a three-tiered classification system: (1) Play Categories addresses how much agency a

child has during a play experience; (2) Play Domains address what the child is learning and

doing during play and; (3) Social Interaction Distinctions of Play address who a child engages

with during play. Researchers, teachers, and parents can use the ERPEC to name the play that

they observe concisely, while still preserving the subtleties that make each play experience

unique.

Research Methodology

The research for this project occurred in five, iterative parts (Figure 1): (1) A thorough

review of literature on play in early childhood; (2) Design of the Explanatory Rubric for Play in

Early Childhood (ERPEC) based on the literature review; (3) Collection of informal feedback

and the creation of a second version of the ERPEC based on the feedback; (4) Further literature

review as a visiting scholar at the Strong Museum of Play and the creation of a third version of

the ERPEC based on findings; (5) Collection of feedback from 12 early childhood professionals,

further literature review and the creation of a fourth version of the ERPEC.

Figure 1: Research process and timeline


Review and Organization of the Literature

To answer my initial overarching research question - “How is play in early childhood

defined in the research literature?”- I initially searched “play” and “early childhood” and

“definition” using Columbia University Libraries Catalog (CLIO) and the Gottesman Libraries

Catalog at Teachers College. I reviewed the literature and recorded play definitions that were

mentioned in articles that discussed play in early childhood.

As I read the literature, themes began to emerge and with them, more specific research

questions: “How is play categorized in the literature?”; “What are the different types of play

described in the literature, how do they connect to one another and how do they relate to

domains of learning?”; “How is social interaction during play discussed in the literature?” From

there, several constructs related to how play is defined and could be categorized began to

emerge: the role of the adult, the role of the child, the motivation source, and the material source.

I extended my literature search accordingly by adding relevant search terms (“categories”,

“freedom”, “types”, “social interaction”, “motivation”, “materials) to find related articles. All

article and book notes were recorded in a spreadsheet format, with a column that noted which

emerging themes and constructs were addressed by the article or book.

In August of 2020, another literature search was conducted at the Brian Sutton-Smith

Library and Archives of Play at the Strong Museum of Play in Rochester, New York. With the

support of a research librarian, 19 books and articles that were unavailable via Columbia

University’s databases were reviewed. Notes were added to the same spreadsheet and themes and

constructs were also recorded.

By the time of the finalized ERPEC, a total of 68 papers from academic journals and 12

papers from gray literature were reviewed. A total of 8 books, including textbooks, were


reviewed. All literature notes, including those that related to emerging themes and constructs,

were recorded in the same spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet of notes from the literature was thoroughly reviewed. Emerging themes

and constructs were organized into clearer distinctions: (1) Broad Play Definitions (2) Play

Categories: Spontaneous, Free, Guided, and Structured (distinguished according to the constructs

adult role, child role, motivation source, and material source); (3) Play Domains (often referred

to as play “types” in the literature) and; (4) Social Interaction Distinctions of Play. Then,

literature notes on the spreadsheet were organized and color coded according to these

distinctions. I used patterns across sources to begin designing the levels of the ERPEC: first an

overarching definition, then play categories organized according to designating themes in the

literature (adult role, child role, motivation source, material source), then play domains organized

according to learning and development domains but informed by common play “types” in the

literature, and finally by social interaction distinctions of play.

The first draft of the ERPEC was altered through an iterative process. I continued to

review the literature further – both new literature to fill gaps in understanding and previous

literature more deeply – and discussed the first iteration of the ERPEC with my independent

study advisor, Dr. Sharon Lynn Kagan. Shortly after, I gathered feedback on this initial design

from three early childhood educators and the vice president of education at the Strong Museum

of Play through informal interviews. The ERPEC was adjusted according to feedback and

another cycle of literature review was completed.

Feedback

After the ERPEC was in a more formal draft format, it was shared with twelve early


childhood professionals in my immediate and extended network for feedback. The sample of

professionals who were asked to give feedback was selected by convenience sampling. As this

tool is unique in nature, I was advised to only solicit feedback from trusted connections before

the ERPEC is more formally shared or published. The sample of stakeholders who provided

feedback included six early childhood educators, three early childhood research professors, an

international early childhood education officer, an early childhood curriculum writer, and the

vice president of education at the Strong Museum of Play.

Each stakeholder was first asked if they would be willing to participate through an email

with a brief background on the ERPEC. If they agreed to provide feedback, they were sent a

unique Google Document copy of the rubric with a more detailed background on the project, five

targeted questions, and the direction to comment and track changes freely on the document.

Participants were asked to type reflections on the following questions: (1) What stands out as

missing from this tool?; (2) Describe any parts of the tool that you disagree with or that need to

be clarified or improved.; (3) How could this tool be beneficial to the early childhood field?; (4)

Would you use this tool in your work? If so, how? and; (5) Do you have any overarching

questions, concerns or suggestions?

When all feedback was received, it was reviewed according to each section of the

ERPEC: Overarching Definition of Play, Play Categories, Play Domains, Social Interaction

Distinctions of Play. The ERPEC was altered according to relevant feedback. If feedback was

unclear, or if I disagreed with it, I followed up with the participant for a more in-depth

conversation. Follow-up discussions were had with four professionals via email and one

professional via Zoom. Feedback participants were divided into “Scholars” (research professors,

an international education officer, and the VP of education at Strong) and “Practitioners”


(educators and a curriculum developer) to study if there were any distinctions in feedback

according to participant background with early childhood education and play.

Research Assumptions, Limitations, and Positionality

This research and the ERPEC are limited as most of the literature consulted was written

from a Western perspective. Since it does not reflect the voices and opinions of many cultural

groups, this research lacks a holistic view of play and may not be universally applied as it stands.

Similarly, the feedback received was also limited: all but one feedback participant works in the

United States and all but one was born and raised in the U.S. Thus, feedback on the rubric from

non-Western early childhood professionals should be solicited in the future. The breakdown of

feedback participants was also uneven: five scholars and seven practitioners. Furthermore, it is

likely that participants’ feedback may have been biased, since all contacted support play in early

childhood. Similarly, feedback may have been swayed to be positive as the majority (8) of

feedback participants know me personally.

The research and ERPEC are also impacted by my positionality as a former early

childhood educator and my identity as a white, middle-class woman. Due to my personal

experiences in the classroom, I acknowledge that I am strongly opinionated about what play in

early childhood classrooms should look like. I am aware of how my personal connection to the

topic undoubtedly led to bias in how I framed this project and designed the ERPEC. My

definition of optimal play is surely influenced by my experience of play as a child, which was

framed by my identity as a white, middle-class girl, growing up in a safe, suburban community.

Further, my secondary and postgraduate education, related to child development and early

childhood education, were completed at liberal arts institutions in New England. Therefore, my


opinion on the importance of play in ECE and what play should look like for optimal

development and learning for young children is through the lens of a liberal arts education.

Throughout the design of the ERPEC, I consistently reflected by asking myself if what I was

creating was inclusive not only of other cultures, but also of all socio-economic situations. For

example, one of the ERPEC’s Play Categories (Spontaneous Play) initially stipulated that it had

to occur outside. This was updated to be more inclusive, after reflecting on the fact that not all

children can play outside safely.

The Design of the ERPEC: Explaining Each Tier

Overarching Definition of Play in Early Childhood

Most scholars admit that play is difficult to define and some even argue that it should not

have a definition. In his groundbreaking book on the science of play – Play: how it shapes the

brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul – Dr. Stuart Brown (2009) admits that he

has long resisted giving a definition of play, as it is inherently “varied” (p.15). Pasi Sahlberg and

William Doyle, two strong advocates for play’s role in schools, also hesitate to give a succinct

definition of play in their book Let the children play: how more play will save our schools and

help children thrive (2019). For them, play is more of a process than a product. Psychologist

Harold Schlosberg asserted that play is “not even a researchable phenomenon,” (Schlosberg,

1947 as quoted in Bergen, 2015 p.101).

Many play theorists and play advocates do attempt to define play and some overarching

themes are indeed present across definitions. However, many of these definitions remain elusive

with often verbose and intangible descriptions. The definition of play in one of the most widely


used textbooks for early childhood teacher training provides a quintessential example of the

complex nature of how play in early childhood is often defined:

“Play is fun, carried out for the pleasure of doing it, free of externally imposed rules,

spontaneous, and voluntary. It requires the player’s active involvement and the suspension of

reality. It is a symbolic behavior that allows the player to treat objects as though they were

something else. Players assume roles as though they were performers or explorers and sometimes

machines. Players establish rules consistent with the play theme and roles requiring one another

to perform in patterns that fit the narrative...Reality is suspended, but the play is governed by

internal rules; thus the play event has internal coherence. Children reflect what they know and

understand about their world. They also solidify their concepts; share ideas; correct each

other; solve problems and communicate.” (Kostelnik et al., 2015, p.471)

Play can be defined more theoretically, as a state of being or a set of unquantifiable

characteristics, or more practically, as it relates to activities. For Brown (2009), “Play is a state of

mind, rather than an activity... an absorbing, apparently purposeless activity that provides

enjoyment and a suspension of self-consciousness and a sense of time” (p.60). Brown is clear

that play is not an activity, yet Miller and Almon (2009) disagree, as they “use the word play to

describe activities that are freely chosen and directed by children and arise from intrinsic

motivation” (p.15).

Most theorists and advocates find a balance between defining play theoretically and

defining it as it relates to activities by listing observable behaviors and emotions. For example,

after admitting play definitions are “varied”, NAEYC (2019) leans on psychologist Peter Gray’s

definition of play characteristics in the introductory chapter of their book on play. The

characteristics are listed as: “Play is something chosen by the players, an activity they engage in

just for its own sake; The players determine the content of the play, including the structure and

rules; Players are free to stop anytime, and they’re engaged in the activity but are not stressed by

it; Because play is shaped by the imagination, it follows different rules than those found in real

life” (p. 8). Although some of these characteristics are observable, this definition leaves out


certain types of play that involve more of an adult role and, like Kostelnik et al.’s (2015)

definition, is complex with some intangible descriptions.

The LEGO Foundation, a powerful leader in the field of play, “redefines” play in terms

of characteristics of both play and “playful learning”. For LEGO (2017), play is “many kinds of

experiences, from play that gives children the freedom to explore and discover with minimal

constraints, to play that is more guided or structured” (p. 11). They note that both environments

and culture impact play. For learning to occur through play, “the activity (1) is experienced as

joyful, (2) helps children find meaning in what they are doing or learning, (3) involves active,

engaged, minds-on thinking, (4) as well as iterative thinking (experimentation, hypothesis

testing, etc.), and (5) social interaction” (p. 12). This list of characteristics is more

straightforward than other definitions of play, particularly as it connects play to learning.

However, proponents of nonsocial play would disagree with LEGO’s inclusion of “social

interaction” in their definition of playful learning (Luckey & Fabes, 2005).

I sought to create an overarching definition of play (Table 1) that is inclusive of most

definitions in the literature and could act as the foundation of the ERPEC. To do this, I put aside

any specific play categorizations or types that I found in the literature, as I knew those would be

more relevant to my Play Categories and Play Domains levels of the ERPEC. Instead, I drew on

the patterns and agreement I saw in the literature related to the overall process and purpose of

play, including a child’s behaviors and emotions during a play experience.

I reviewed sixteen articles and three books that generally described play, for a total of

nineteen pieces of literature that were reviewed to create the overarching definition of play. I

found that much of the literature (14) I reviewed mentioned enjoyment, fun or lack of stress, so I

included enjoys in the definition. Imagination and creativity were also mentioned in (13) pieces


of literature, so use creative thinking was included in the definition. The mention of interaction

(whether it be with people, materials and/or the environment) and an active state was mentioned

in (18) works of literature, so I included interacting with people, materials and/or the

environment. Using play to understand the world and learn new things was included in (17)

descriptions of play in my search, so I ended the definition with in order to understand and learn

about their world.

Table 1

Overarching Definition of Play in Early Childhood

Overarching Definition of Play in Early Childhood: During a play experience, a child enjoys using creative thinking while

interacting with people, materials and/or the environment in order to understand and learn about their world.

This Overarching Definition of Play is not a tier for the taxonomic system; however it is

included on the ERPEC to provide the basis for the experiences that can be named and defined

using the ERPEC – all experiences must fit this overarching definition in order to be considered

play. After an experience is named play according to this overarching definition, then one should

consider the first tier of the taxonomic system explained by the ERPEC, Play Categories.

Play Categories

Throughout my review of the literature, I found that a handful of authors urged the field

to move beyond the use of play in “an all or nothing fashion” as a universal concept by defining

it more precisely using categories or types (Bergen, 1988, p.13; Bodrova & Germeroth, 2013;

Zosh et al., 2018; Miller & Almon, 2009). For example, Bodrova & Germeroth (2013),

acknowledge the need to move beyond the “general way” of discussing how play is important to


specific “types of play and their potential benefit” (p.120). The design of Play Categories (Table

2) seeks to heed this call.

Although there seem to have been no attempts to define play precisely and thoroughly

through a classification or taxonomic system, the need for play distinctions has been addressed

by some scholars through the conceptualization of play as a categorized continuum or scale

(Miller & Almon, 2009; Pyle and Danniels 2017; Zosh et al., 2017; Zosh et al., 2018). I used

these continuums as the premise for the ERPEC’s Play Categories section.

Zosh et al. (2017) proposed play as a continuum for a white paper on Learning through

Play, published by The LEGO Foundation (Figure 2). The continuum goes from left to right

based on the “balance of child-adult involvement and constraints”. The categories are named, but

little description is given, and two of the four categories do not have “play” in the name.

Figure 2 (As seen in Zosh et al., 2017, p. 13)

Zosh and his same colleagues (2018) altered the continuum published by LEGO into a

spectrum (Figure 3). The spectrum is like the preceding continuum in that it is organized from

left to right according to child agency. However, the spectrum provides more detail, including

who (adult or child) initiates and directs the play experience and whether there is an explicit

learning goal. It also adds in two more categories: “Co-opted play” and “Playful instruction”.


Figure 3 (As seen in Zosh et al., 2018, p. 4)

Other published play continuums follow a similar theme in categorizing play experiences

according to adult and child role. For example, Pyle and Danniels (2017) propose a “continuum

of play-based learning” which begins with child-directed free play, moves into “collaboratively

designed play” and ends with teacher-directed learning through games (Figure 4).

Figure 4 (As seen in Pyle & Danniels, 2017, p. 282)

Miller and Almon (2009) propose “The Kindergarten Continuum,” which is also

organized from left to right according to teacher and student role (Figure 5). This continuum

begins with the “Laissez-Faire Loosely Structured Classroom” category, which relates to play

that is child-initiated and directed, with little to no adult support. Then it moves into what are

highlighted as being the most effective classroom practices: “Classroom Rich in Child-Initiated

Play” and “Playful Classroom with Focused Learning” where teachers act as guides for a child’s

learning through play. The continuum ends with “Didactic, Highly Structured Classroom” where

teachers lead instruction with little or no play.


Figure 5 (As seen in Miller & Almon, 2009, p.12)

Naming the Categories

These continuums demonstrate that play can be divided into meaningful categories. I

used these existing continuums as the foundation for my Play Categories in many ways.

However, the first thing I did was alter how play categories were named in these continuums.

When I designed the Play Categories tier of the ERPEC, I found it important to first create names

for each category that were straightforward, simple, and uniform in language structure.

Throughout the existing play continuums, not all categories have “play” in their name.

For example, Zosh et al. (2017; 2018) have “games” and “direct instruction” in both of their

continuums and Pyle and Danniels (2017) have “learning through games” on their continuum.

This may be confusing to readers, as these are categories on a spectrum of play, yet are not being

referred to as play by name. Furthermore, some categories are named in a noun form (e.g.,

“games”), some are named as a verb, in the form of the behavior (e.g., “learning through

games”) and others are named as a verb with adverb in front of it (e.g., “playful learning”).

Furthermore, Miller and Almon’s (2009) continuum’s categories are not names, but rather

descriptions themselves, which makes it difficult to name a play experience quickly and simply

in these terms.


I designed Play Category names to follow the same language structure in order to address

the lack of uniformity in category names in existing continuums: simply a descriptive word

ahead of the word “Play”. ERPEC’s Play Categories became: Spontaneous Play, Free Play,

Guided Play, and Structured Play (Table 2).

Level of Freedom for the Child: Adult Role vs. Child Role in Play

The existing continuums all share the same foundation: they each reflect important

distinctions related to the level of agency that a child has in the play experience, and how the

adult is involved. For example, all continuums move from left to right based on the level of

freedom a child has; they all begin with free play, meaning that the child directs and initiates the

play experience, and end with a distinction of play or nonplay that is adult initiated and directed.

These continuums consider definitions of play that value child agency as a crucial aspect of play,

while also recognizing that an adult’s presence during a child’s play experience does not

necessarily nullify the experience, but rather signifies another play distinction.

When designing my Play Categories section for the ERPEC, I followed the theme of

ordering the categories along a continuum according to the amount of agency ascribed to the

child (agency meaning if they initiate and direct the play). In addition to ordering ERPEC’s Play

Categories according to how much agency a child has, I expand on the work of Zosh et al.

(2018), by clearly describing the role of the adult and the role of the child during each Play

Category.

Guided Play and Free Play. The use of the child and adult role to distinguish categories

of play is supported by the literature. A balance between the role of the adult and the role of the

child in play (Guided Play) is endorsed by many scholars (Hassinger-Das, Hirsh-Pasek, &


Golinkoff, 2017; Jones & Reynolds, 2016; Lester & Russell, 2010; Miller & Almon, 2009;

Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2013). In fact, from a Vygotskian perspective, for learning

to occur during play, there needs to be a more advanced peer or adult supporting and challenging

the child (Bodrova, Germeroth & Leong, 2013). Other scholars acknowledge that both child-

directed play (Free Play) and time for teacher-supported play (Guided Play) serve different

purposes and therefore, both hold important roles in the classroom (Sahlberg & Doyle, 2019;

Zosh et al, 2018). For some more theoretical scholars, the fact that play is free from adult

direction and initiation is paramount to the definition itself (Free Play) (Brown, 2009).

It is clear from the literature that both Guided Play and Free Play are important and well-

established play categories and should be a part of the ERPEC. However, these two categories

fail to encapsulate all the ways in which play can manifest according to adult and child role in

play. I chose to include Spontaneous Play and Structured Play in the ERPEC to address those

gaps.

Structured Play. Existing continuums include a category to represent activities that are

adult-initiated and, presumably, adult-directed: “Direct Instruction”, “Games”, “Didactic, Highly

Structured Classroom”. None of these categories have “play” in the name, perhaps because many

may argue they do not count as play since the child has little to no agency. But I find that this

ignores a category of play increasingly present in early childhood, which I term Structured Play.

Gottfried and Brown (1986) describe a category of play as, “structured games which adults have

introduced to children, which may or may not require adult supervision” (p.14). Using their work

as a starting point, I include Structured Play to represent the activities in and out of the classroom

that are referred to as play, in which children have little agency. These are activities that have

rules and need to be introduced by an adult or older child, like sports, board games, and curated


learning games (which, in the age of Teachers Pay Teachers, may be increasingly present in

early childhood classrooms). Since these activities are referred to as play in the real world by

teachers, parents, and administrators, it is important to include them when categorizing play, so

that they do not get mixed up with other, potentially more meaningful categories of play by

simply being termed “play”.

Spontaneous Play. I also found a category missing on the other end of the existing

continuums, a category of play in which children have more agency than they do during Free

Play. I term this category Spontaneous Play. The need for this category was founded on the work

of Wood (2014). Wood argues that free play in schools is never fully free, as it is tied to an

institution with inherent goals and rules. Although children have agency to initiate and direct

play during free play in schools, the materials and space available are chosen by adults and

children may feel pressure to act a certain way to conform to the expectations of the adult and

rules at school. A child has more agency playing freely with sticks and rocks they found in the

park, for example, than they do playing with a set of transportation toys put out by the teacher at

school. Thus, it is important that separate Play Categories exist to differentiate between

experiences where a child is “free” but there is still inherent institutional influence over materials

and those where a child has more agency over the materials and space.

Motivation

What motivates the child to play is an important distinction to make between Play

Categories: Is the child motivated to play by their own desire (intrinsically)? Or is an outside

force, such as an adult, a competition or expectation, leading them to feel extrinsically motivated

to play? Although motivation source is hard to measure, Ellis (1973, as referenced in Bergen,


1988) discusses the importance of dividing play into categories based on motive.

There are patterns in the literature related to connecting the source of motivation to play

categories. Many definitions of play mention intrinsic motivation as an important characteristic

(Brown, 2009; Broström, 2017; Miller & Almon, 2009; Van Horn et. al, 2003). The definitions

that mention intrinsic motivation as a piece of their definitions, are definitions describing play

where the child has complete agency. So, in applying this to the ERPEC Play Categories, this

would mean that during Spontaneous Play and Free Play children are intrinsically motivated.

This is supported by the definition of intrinsic motivation, as well, when something is done “for

its own sake” with no pressure from an external force, such as a person or concrete goal (Reiss,

2012, p.152). Therefore, it is sensible to describe play that is free from goals and adults as

intrinsically motivated.

The motivation source of Guided Play is less clear. Extrinsic motivation can “refer to the

purpose of an instrumental goal” (Reiss, 2012, p.152). Most often, guided play is planned by an

adult with a learning goal in mind, especially in the classroom (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek &

Golinkoff, 2013). Even if there is no pre-planned goal, the adult will provide the guidance

necessary for the child to understand something new or expand on their learning (Hassinger-Das,

Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2017). The presence of the adult also suggests that the overall guided

play experience is not “for its own sake”. However, since the child is free to direct the play

experience during guided play, there will certainly be moments in the play experience where a

child plays more freely and feels motivated intrinsically. Therefore, “Guided Play” is

characterized as having both an extrinsic and intrinsic motivation source in the ERPEC.

There is a predetermined goal of Structured Play - winning a game, for example.

Therefore, the ERPEC states that children are extrinsically motivated during Structured Play,


either by an adult or competition.

Materials

Zosh et al. (2017) note that “play is not just something that happens in a vacuum” (p.13).

It is important to consider the environment, including the materials in a play experience. Indeed,

many early childhood programs build play in the classroom around the “provision of materials,

space and time to use them” (Bowman, Donovan & Burns, 2001, p. 216). Play materials have the

potential to stimulate a child's learning and development (Kostelnik, 2015). However, the role of

materials, and the impact they may have on a child’s learning and development, can vary

according to the amount of agency a child has in creating and/or choosing the materials that they

play with. Some early childhood educators may have the philosophy that part of their job is to

provide children with “well-planned curricular materials”, or are a part of an institution that

rewards them for more having a more structured pedagogical approach (Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek,

Newcombe, & Golinkoff, 2013, p.1872), whereas others may believe that children learn best

when they are empowered to freely explore or create their own play materials (Miller & Almon,

2009). Other educators lie somewhere in between and may provide the materials but give

children agency in choosing which materials to engage with (Nell & Drew, n.d.).

The connection between child agency and play materials is rooted in widely accepted

theories of child development and early childhood pedagogical perspectives. Some theorists

contend that a child learns best with open-ended interaction with objects. This free

experimentation with objects is a cornerstone of Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development

(Kostelnik, 2015). The Reggio Emilia early childhood pedagogical perspective prescribes to the

use of materials from the natural world in the classroom and children are empowered to explore


and use materials freely (Wien, 2008).

Whereas Reggio pedagogy encourages children to use materials in creative and inventive

ways, Dewey believed that children should learn how to use materials that reflect everyday life at

home: cooking, construction, sewing and so on. From a Deweyan perspective, children should

have some agency over their use of materials: children learn from the process of creating

something new and thus when, “adult material is handed over ready-made to the child, [the

child’s] perspective is ignored... and the experience which the child already has, which might be

made a vital instrument of learning, is left unutilized and to degenerate” (Wolfe, 2002, p.206).

Other early childhood theorists and pedagogues designed their own materials that,

through built-in scaffolding, could work as teachers themselves. Froebel, the creator of

kindergarten, made objects – or as he termed, “gifts” – the basis for his early childhood

pedagogy (Brehony, 2013). Frobel’s gifts were designed to be manipulative materials that could

be used across developmental levels with the guidance of a teacher (Wolfe, 2002). Maria

Montessori shared Froebel’s belief that knowledge is constructed through interaction with

materials. However, she made her materials to be less open-ended than Froebel. Montessori’s

materials follow a strict and formal sequence which relies on a child’s self-mastery of a certain

level before they advance. For Montessori, the materials have the power to act as a teacher and

the classroom teacher’s role is one of an observer (Kostelnik, 2015).

The ERPEC seeks to represent the diversity of perspectives surrounding the amount of

agency a child should have around materials in a play experience. Thus, each play category has

its own sub-section on Materials. In the Free Play category, children freely choose or create

materials from a set of materials that are made available by the adult. During Guided Play, the

adult intentionally selects and provides the materials or, if the child chooses the materials, the


adult influences how a child interacts with the materials. The materials are provided by the adult,

are fixed, and are connected to a set of rules during Structured Play.

The Materials subsection is particularly important to distinguish the Spontaneous Play

category from the others. Many argue that children’s creativity during play is stifled by the

domination of commercialized, adult-made toys and argue that children should play with natural,

simple toys (TRUCE, 2018; Bergen, 1988; Gottfried & Brown, 1986). The Spontaneous Play

category addresses this perspective by detailing that the materials should be open-ended in this

category and there should be no adult influence over the materials used. The child should create

the toys, whether literally or through the invention of creative ways to use the materials in a

different way than they were intended to be used by the adults who created them.

Table 2

Play Categories

PLAY CATEGORIES

Spontaneous Play Free Play Guided Play Structured Play

Summary Play experiences are

completely child-initiated and

child-directed.

There is no predetermined

learning objective, but

learning is inherent to the

process.

Play experiences are child-

initiated and child-directed.

However, adults provide the

materials and may limit the

time frame.


learning objective, but

learning is inherent to the

process.

Play experiences are

adult-initiated, but child-

directed.

There is a set learning

objective.

Play experiences

are adult-initiated

and adult-

directed.

These are games

or activities that

have inflexible

rules and specific

goals that may

relate to a desired

learning

outcome.

Adult Role Adults are not involved in the

play experience.

Adults are not directly

involved in the play

experience but are involved

in what materials are

available to the children and

guide the time frame of the

play.

Adults provide the

materials and the setting

for the play experience.

The adult initiates the

play experience and

scaffolds for the child

based on a learning

Adults plan,

monitor and

control the

activity. The

adults create the

activity and


objective. The adult may

play alongside the child

and/or engage in play-

related dialogue with the

goal of enhancing the

child’s learning.

determine the

rules.

Child Role Children guide their own

learning through free

interactions with materials,

their environment and peers.

Children are free from all

formal institutionalized

areas.

Children guide their own

learning through free

interactions with materials,

their environment and peers.

Children partake in

learning based on the

materials the adult has

provided, as well as adult

feedback.

Children follow

the direction of

the adults or the

rules prescribed

by the game.

Motivation

Children are intrinsically

motivated.


motivated.

Children may be both

extrinsically and

intrinsically motivated.

Children are

extrinsically

motivated (by an

adult or

competition).

Materials Materials are open-ended.

There is no adult influence

over the materials used. The

child creates the materials

used for play -- whether

literally or through the

invention of creative ways to

use materials in a different

way than they were intended

to be used by the adults who

made them.

The materials may be freely

selected or created by the

child from a set of materials

made available by an adult.

The materials are selected

and provided by the adult

and/or impacts how a

child interacts with the

materials.

The materials are

provided by the

adult, are fixed,

and are

connected to a set

of rules.

Examples Making a fort in the

woods

Playing a make-

believe game with

friends outside or at

home

Building a structure

with items found

around the house

Using items from

the kitchen to play

music

Playing with

objects like dolls or

blocks with no

adult interaction

Sociodramatic play

without a theme

Playing on

playgrounds or

play structures

Painting, drawing,

creating with art

supplies

Theme-related play

“Center time” with

materials put out by the

adult

Sociodramatic play

where the adult plays a

role

“Learning toys” (e.g.

Montessori toys,

Tangram puzzles)

Organized

sports games

Board games

Curated

“learning games”

(e.g. sight word

tic-tac-toe,

bingo)

Computer or

video games

Play Domains

Play in early childhood is often classified by play types. Play types often relate to

domains of learning and development. Play types in the literature are described differently from

play categories in the literature, as the role of the child and the role of the adult are most often

not included or described broadly. This makes sense, as these types of play can occur with


varying levels of child agency. This led me to think about the role of these two broader

distinctions when discussing play: the level of agency a child has (determined by the role of the

child, the role of the adult, the child’s motivation, and the source of the materials) and what the

child is doing and/or learning.

For play to be accurately studied, it is important that these two distinctions are separated,

categorized, and defined. Thus, after the level of agency a child has during play is considered in

the Play Categories tier of the ERPEC, what the child is learning and/or doing must be

considered in the second tier of the ERPEC: in the Play Domains tier (Table 4). Play Domains

are distinct from Play Categories as they do not reference child agency in their descriptions,

rather they can occur across Play Categories with varying levels of child agency. Moreover, Play

Domains may be used at various points or simultaneously during the same play experience. For

example, a child could engage in language and literacy play (a Play Domain) that is

Spontaneous, Guided, Free or Structured. Unlike Play Categories, Play Domains are not

mutually exclusive, meaning that children can engage in more than one Play Domain at the same

time. The ERPEC enables us to name and define a play experience using both a Play Category

and Play Domain(s).

Like Play Categories, there is a lack of consensus over what play types are, should be

called and how they should be organized. I designed the Play Domains on the ERPEC to address

this lack of consensus by synthesizing prominent play types with research on learning domains

(Bloom, 1956), developmental domains (Kostelnik, 2015) and multiple intelligences (Garner,

2011) (Table 3). The organization of play types into Play Domains provides both an easily

understandable framework and also relates play to a child’s learning and development, which

defends its important role in early childhood classrooms.


Table 3

Connecting “Play Domains” to Theory and Research

Play Domain Developmental

Domain Addressed

(Kostelnik, 2015)

Learning Domain

Addressed

(Bloom, 1956)

Multiple

Intelligence

Addressed

(Garder, 2011)

Play

Types in the Literature

Language and

literacy play

Language Cognitive Linguistic Linguistic play (Moyles,

1989); Language play (Miller

& Almon, 2009); Oral

language and literacy play

(Enz & Christie, 1993);

“Storytelling and narrative

play” (Brown, 2009)

Math Play Cognitive Cognitive

Psychomotor

Logical-

mathematical

Psychomotor

Playful math activities

(Fisher et al., 2013; NAEYC,

2019; Swamination &

Trawick-Smith, 2019, as

cited in Han & Johnson,

2019)

Engineering

Play

Cognitive Cognitive

Psychomotor

Logical-

mathematical

Psychomotor

Engineering play (Gold et al.,

2020); “Block play”

(Wellhousen & Kieff, 2001;

Whinnett, 2012),

“construction play” (Miller

& Almon, 2009; Kostelnik et

al., 2015) and “constructive

play” (NAEYC, 2019)

Science and

environmental

play

Cognitive Cognitive

Psychomotor

Logical-

mathematical

Naturalist

Playful science activities (Abrams, 2011; Kostelnik,

2015; Miller & Almon,

2009); Nature play (Dankiw

et al., 2020; Pinedo-Burns,

2019); Outdoor play

(McClintic & Petty, 2015)

Physical play Physical Psychomotor Bodily-

Kinesthetic

Body and movement play

(Brown, 2009); Physical play

(Sahlberg & Doyle, 2009);

Large-motor play and Small-

motor play (Miller & Almon,

2009); Locomotor play

(Hughes, 2002)

Aesthetic play Aesthetic Psychomotor

Cognitive

Musical

Spatial

Playing with the arts (Miller

& Almon, 2009); Play and

art practices or play and

artistic activity (Schulte &

Thompson, 2018)


Digital play Cognitive

Cognitive

Psychomotor

Logical-

mathematical

Digital play (Marsh et al.,

2016; Bird & Edwards, 2015;

Erdogan et. al, 2018)

Dramatic/

Socio-dramatic

play

Social Affective Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Sociodramatic/ dramatic play

(Gray, 2008; Sahlberg &

Doyle, 2019; Kostelnik,

2015); Pretend play (Lillard

et. al, 2013; Bowman,

Donovan & Burns, 2001);

Symbolic play (NAEYC,

2019); Imaginative play

(Brown, 2009); Make-

believe play (Miller &

Almon, 2009)

Language and literacy play

The first “Play Domain” is language and literacy play, which is defined in the ERPEC as:

“Children use words to understand the world and express themselves.” It can look like

storytelling, labeling a picture, pretending to read a story using illustrations, using the words on

the page to read the book and so on. Play that addresses language and literacy development is

prominent in the literature. However, it is referenced by different names: “linguistic play”

(Moyles, 1989, as cited in Sahlberg & Doyle, 2019), “language play” (Miller & Almon, 2009),

“oral language and literacy play” (Enz & Christie, 1993), “storytelling and narrative play”

(Brown, 2009). Despite different terms to reference it, this type of play is consistently described

as play that develops a child’s oral language and emergent literacy skills. This connects to

Kostelnik and colleagues (2015) concept of the Language Domain of early childhood and

Howard Gardner’s Linguistic Intelligence. In early childhood, children must be supported in

school as they travel through different stages of language and literacy development at varying

rates. The decision to name this Play Domain language and literacy play is rooted in the fact that

early literacy skills are contingent on a child’s early language skills (Soderman & Farrell, 2008).

Therefore, play that addresses language will also address literacy and vice versa.


Math play

Math play is defined in the ERPEC as: “Children explore mathematical dimensions of the

world through interaction with numbers, shapes and sizes”. It encapsulates play in the literature

that relates to math skills development (Fisher et al., 2013; NAEYC, 2019; Swamination &

Trawick-Smith, 2019, as cited in Han & Johnson, 2019). Unlike language and literacy play,

when math play is discussed in the literature it is not given a name. Rather it is referenced

through examples of playful math activities (e.g., sorting and labeling acorns, NAEYC, 2019;

counting and matching objects, Kostelnik, 2015). As these activities exhibit playful attributes

and contribute to a child’s learning and development, it is important that math play is included as

a Play Domain. Fisher et al. (2013) reflect that playful math learning is “understudied” (p.1872).

Perhaps the establishment of a name and definition for math play in the ERPEC may aid in

further research in this area.

Engineering play

“Block play” (Wellhousen & Kieff, 2001; Whinnett, 2012), “construction play” (Miller &

Almon, 2009; Kostelnik et al., 2015) and “constructive play” (NAEYC, 2019) are commonly

used play types. These types of play address the development and learning of cognitive skills

necessary for engineering. Thus, in keeping with the theme of naming play according to the

developmental and learning domains addressed in the experience, ERPEC uses the engineering

play Play Domain to encompass block play, construction play, and constructive play in the

literature. Engineering play has also recently been named in the early childhood literature as a

“new framework for understanding constructive block building as a design process” (Gold et al.,


2020). Engineering play, when combined with digital play, also includes an increasingly popular

type of play for young children - building computer code (Hunsaker & West, 2019).

Science and environmental play

Like math play, play that involves science and the environment is often not given a name

in the literature. When it is discussed, it often relates to learning science in a playful way (Gomes

& Fleer, 2019; Fleer, 2017) or as a part of project-based, problem-based, or inquiry-based

learning (Parker & Thomsen, 2019). In a popular early childhood teacher training textbook,

science is described as a part of the Cognitive Domain of development, in which it should be

playfully taught, with children “doing science” (Kostelnik, 2015, p. 337). Play through

interaction with the natural environment is also present in the literature. It is also described rather

than given a name (Abrams, 2011; Kostelnik, 2015; Miller & Almon, 2009), although some refer

to it as “nature play” (Dankiw et al., 2020; Pinedo-Burns, 2020) or “outdoor play” (McClintic &

Petty, 2015). The science and environmental Play Domain addresses this confusion by naming

and defining this type of play: “Children explore characteristics of and relationships between

natural materials.” This Play Domain combines both science and the environment as interactions

with the environment lead to deeper understanding of scientific concepts (Chaillé & Britain,

2003). Furthermore, the environment and science are commonly grouped together in

assessments, including in the widely used Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale

(ECERS-R) evaluation (Harms, Clifford, Cryer, 1998).

Physical play

Physical play is addressed through a myriad of terms throughout the literature: “physical

play” (Sahlberg & Doyle, 2019; Elkind, 2008), “body and movement play” (Brown, 2009),


“physical activity play” (Smith, 2009), “locomotor play” (Hughes, 2002), “large motor play” and

“small motor play” (Miller & Almon, 2009) are some examples. To group these terms together,

while also using language that reflects the physical domain of development, the ERPEC defines

the Play Domain physical play as: “Children explore the movement of their bodies and/or use

their bodies to express themselves”.

Aesthetic play

The Play Domain aesthetic play is defined in the ERPEC as: “Children use art mediums

to express themselves.” This type of play is rarely named and defined. However, it has been

studied in great length and considered a cornerstone of any early childhood curriculum

(Kostelnik, 2015). When it is discussed, it is referred to as “playing with the arts” (Miller &

Almon, 2009) or described as two separate phenomena – separated by “and” – that may come

together as “play and art practices” or “play and artistic activity” (Schulte & Thompson, 2018).

When children engage in art, it can certainly have playful tendencies and fit the ERPEC’s overall

definition of play. Thus, this type of play needs its own name and definition, so that it may be

easily referenced and its use in the classroom can be more easily justified. The name aesthetic

play was given to this Play Domain over art play, to focus again on the developmental domain

over the curricular subject addressed through this type of play (Kostelnik, 2015).

Digital play

As technology becomes increasingly part of everyday life, digital play in early childhood

is contested (Bird & Edwards, 2015; Erdogan et. al, 2018; NAEYC, 2019). However, the

predominance of technology leads to children’s inevitable interaction and play with digital

devices (Kostelnik et al., 2015). This makes the inclusion of digital play as a Play Domain in the


ERPEC important. Furthermore, digital play can fit in the ERPEC’s overarching definition of

play as children may enjoy using creative thinking while interacting with digital technology to

create new meaning. On the ERPEC, digital play is defined as: “Children use technology and

digital media to understand the world and express themselves”. More research is needed to

understand the impact of this type of play on a child’s learning and development, giving digital

play a name and definition on the ERPEC can help facilitate this (Bird & Edwards, 2015).

Dramatic/ Socio-dramatic play

The last Play Domain on the ERPEC is dramatic/socio-dramatic play, which is defined

as: “Children act out an imagined situation or story.” This Play Domain does not fit as neatly into

the developmental or learning domains as the others. However, dramatic and socio-dramatic play

are the most commonly cited type of play in early childhood. This type of play may look like

playing house or school or imagining a story and acting it out with peers. It is referred to as

dramatic play when a child plays alone and socio-dramatic play when I child plays with one or

more other children. Since this Play Domain may include creative language and making objects

to use as props in an imagined story, it often be used in conjunction with language and literacy

play and aesthetic play. In the literature, this type of play goes by several different names

however, they all share the definition that children use their imagination to act of a sequence of

events of a story (Gray, 2008; Sahlberg & Doyle, 2019; Brown, 2009; NAEYC, 2019; Kostelnik,

2015; Lillard et. al, 2013).

Table 4

Play Domains


PLAY DOMAINS

Play Domain Definition Examples

Language and

literacy play

Children use words to understand the world and express

themselves.

Poem writing, storytelling

Science and

Environmental play

Children explore characteristics of and relationships between

natural materials.

Water table, sand table, science

experiments

Physical play Children explore the movement of their bodies and/or use their

bodies to express themselves.

Dance, sports, swimming, rough-

and-tumble

Math play Children explore mathematical dimensions of the world through

interaction with numbers, shapes and sizes.

Sorting, counting, seriating,

categorizing items,

Engineering play Children use materials to build something new. Building a block tower, making a

“house” with Legos, building a

fort with furniture

Aesthetic play Children use art mediums to express themselves. Painting, drawing, playing music,

singing, drama

Digital play Children use technology and digital media to understand the

world and express themselves.

Computer games, video games,

coding

Dramatic/ Socio-

dramatic play

Children act out an imagined situation or story. Playing school or house, puppet

show

Social Interaction Distinctions of Play

The last piece of the ERPEC, Social Interaction Distinctions of Play, names and defines

varying distinctions of social interaction during a play experience (Table 4). It is important for

social interaction to be distinguished in how a play experience is named, as peer and adult

interaction during play can impact the experience for a child (Ashiabi, 2007; Zosh et al., 2018;

Coplan et al., 2015).

Play, in its overarching definition, is often defined as a social activity (Broström, 2017;

Miller & Almon, 2009) and “social interaction” as a key piece of learning through play (Zosh et

al., 2017, p. 27). Some theorists state “social play” (Brown, 2009; Ashiabi, 2007; Bergen, 1998)

and “nonsocial play” (Luckey & Fabes, 2005; Coplan et al., 2006) as their own types of play.

Furthermore, the social domain is specified as a developmental domain by Kostelnik et al.


(2015). Gardner (2011) defines interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Bloom (1956)

defines the Affective learning domain, which relates to social and emotional skills. However, in

the ERPEC, social interaction has its own distinction, separate from Play Domains. Social

Interaction Distinctions of Play is its own tier of the ERPEC because simply stating “social play”

would not capture the important nuances of social interaction during a play experience: Is the

child playing with a partner or a group of children? Is the child playing alone or in parallel with

other children? Is the child playing with children of the same age? Or with older children or an

adult? Furthermore, children can engage in a Play Domain with varying distinctions of social

interaction.

It is important to address these nuances because both who the child is playing with, and

the number of playmates a child has can impact the play experience. For example, adults and

older children act as scaffolds for the child during play, which may challenge and expand the

child’s learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Bodrova, Germeroth, & Leong, 2013; Broadhead, 2005). Play

with peers promotes “children’s negotiation and problem-solving skills…[and] their abilities to

cooperate with others” (Ashiabi, 2007, p. 206). The number of playmates is also important in

classifying a play experience. For example, when a child plays alone, they may develop their

ability to self-reflect and sustain independent learning. Furthermore, solitary or nonsocial play

provides the alone time that some children need, particularly socially anxious or shy children

(Luckey & Fabes, 2005). Research has also shown a difference in perception of characteristics of

children who play in pairs versus those who play in groups (Benenson, Tricerri & Hamerman,

1999).

These nuances are addressed in the ERPEC with two major social interaction distinctions:

(1) Group Size: the quantity of playmates and; (2) Age: the developmental stage/age of the


playmates. These two distinctions are delineated further into sub-distinctions accompanied by

definitions. When naming a play experience, a sub-distinction from both larger distinctions,

Group Size and Age, should be included, unless a child is playing alone (in which case,

“solitary” would be the only sub-distinction chosen). For example, if a child is playing with one

peer who is around the same age (within 12 months), then the social interaction distinctions

would be named as: “peer, same-age”.

Table 5

Social Interaction Distinctions

SOCIAL INTERACTION DISTINCTIONS

Distinctions Sub-

Distinctions

Description

Same-age The child plays with peer(s) the same age.

Mixed-age The child plays with peer(s) of different ages.

1 Age Adult The child plays with an adult.

Adult and

peer (s)

The child plays with both an adult and peers.

Solitary The child plays alone.

2 Group Size Parallel The child plays in parallel with another child/other children.

Partner The child plays with one other child.

Group The child plays with more than one other child.

Putting it All Together: Play Scenarios and the ERPEC

Figure 6

How to Name a Play Experience Using the ERPEC


The goal of this work is that the ERPEC, with its three tiers - Play Categories, Play

Domains, and Social Interaction Distinctions of Play - will be used to name and define play

experiences in early childhood more precisely. However, as play in early childhood is a

complicated and nuanced concept, the ERPEC may also seem nuanced and complicated,

particularly without examples of its use in practice. Two Practitioners who gave feedback

mentioned this and recommended that the ERPEC be accompanied by a group of scenarios. To

address this, I contacted two early childhood educators to provide me with random early

childhood play scenarios. I have outlined how to use the ERPEC to name and define play

experiences (Figure 6). Table 6 shows the submitted scenarios, color coded, with the example of

how to name them using the ERPEC.

Table 6

Play Scenarios

Description of Play Experience Name

Scenario 1 Two kindergarten children decide to

“cook for a restaurant” in the dramatic

play center of a classroom during free

choice time. They “write” menus and a

restaurant sign.

Same-age, partner free dramatic,

language and literacy play

Scenario 2 A group of four preschool children

work with a teacher to build the “Empire

State Building” in the blocks center.

Same-age, group guided engineering

play

Scenario 3 A group of four neighbors - two four-

year-olds, one six-year-old and one

eight-year-old work together to build a

“home” for worms using mud, twigs,

leaves and rocks in one of their yards.

*the lack of adult presence and natural

materials indicate Spontaneous Play

Mixed-age, group spontaneous

science and environmental

engineering play


Scenario 4 A class of kindergarteners play “double-

digit numbers bingo” with their teacher

leading the activity.

Same-age, group structured math

play

Feedback Considerations

Like the literature, there were some disagreements present in feedback regarding what

play in early childhood really means and how it should be defined. Although there was not much

disagreement, most disagreement came from the Scholars, rather than Practitioners. While

Scholars were more concerned with nuances related to names and distinctions used, Practitioners

were more concerned with how the tool could be used to defend play in their classrooms.

Practitioners

A total of seven practitioners gave feedback on the ERPEC: five early childhood

educators, one early childhood curriculum writer, and one childhood literacy specialist. Almost

all (5/7) practitioners reflected on the tool’s potential for helping them defend the use of play in

their classrooms. Three Practitioners requested that I create a tool that teachers could use to plan

play quickly and easily in their classrooms and record observations of children playing based on

ERPEC distinctions. Some (3) urged me to include more evidence about the value in each play

distinction, so that they would be better equipped to defend specific types of play in their

classrooms. This is something that was initially a part of the ERPEC, in its first iteration.

However, I quickly realized that there was not enough specific evidence regarding different types

of play to be able to consistently include this as a part of the ERPEC. This is a part of the

rationale for the ERPEC - it can provide the language necessary to connect learning and

development outcomes to specific types of play, so that the field will eventually be able to


present specific evidence.

Practitioners tended to leave more general comments in their responses to the set of

questions provided and left few questions or suggestions on the ERPEC. However, there were a

few comments left that led to the alteration of the rubric. Two practitioners asked what category

would be used if an adult enters a play experience only briefly, or if a child asks the adult to be a

part of their play. Similarly, another noted the need for clarification on the fluidity of Play

Categories. I added a footnote to the rubric to clarify these important points: “These categories

cannot overlap. However, a child may move from one category to another and back during the

same play experience (for example, if they ask an adult for help during free play, they shift to

guided play).” Furthermore, others (2) suggested there be more scenarios and examples to aid in

making the ERPEC “dummy proof”. I add an extra page to the ERPEC that breaks down the

taxonomy of the rubric and shows how it would be used for example play scenarios, as shown in

the Putting it All Together section above.

Practitioners left positive feedback in their responses to the questions, and all noted that

they would use it in their work. One educator reflected that it “was exciting to see content areas

as play areas,” regarding the Play Domains. Another expressed that the ERPEC thoroughly

illustrates myriad ways that play can manifest: “I think this tool could be very beneficial to the

early childhood field because so often teachers think that play has to be adult-directed. They

don’t see child-led play as playing and instead fear that the children are ‘out of control’ whereas

this tool explains that as the teachers step-back and observe the children are sorting out their

experiences in the classroom and developing an understanding of the world around them”. Some

reflected on the gap of consistent play language in the field, and the potential for the ERPEC to

fill it: “Understanding the word ‘play’ is crucial in the early childhood world. This rubric gives


thoughtful, intentional, and finite language that would be beneficial to understand, observe, and

evaluate a child’s play experience.”

Scholars

Five scholars responded to give feedback on the ERPEC. One Scholar is an international

education officer at UNICEF, three are research professors focused on early childhood

education/development and the last is the Vice President of Education at the Strong Museum of

Play. Overall, the Scholars gave more feedback on the classifications of play - the Overarching

Definition of Play, Play Categories, Play Domains, and Social Interaction Distinctions of Play -

than the Practitioners did.

Three Scholars commented on the Overarching Definition of Play. One Scholar argued

that the definition of play is often more about the “process” over the “purpose”, which made my

inclusion of “to test reality in order to make new meaning” arguably incorrect. This scholar

suggested that children may not do this when engaged in Spontaneous or Free Play. I understand

this point, and this is consistent with disagreement in the literature. However, since some of the

literature defines play as activity that constructs new knowledge – particularly key constructivist

learning theorists (Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky) – I have decided to only slightly alter this to “to

understand and learn about their world” for now. Another Scholar, a prominent play researcher

herself, pushed me to be more specific in my overarching definition and include that children

have agency in the definition. Again, these are both good points, but I have chosen to keep the

definition broad to encompass the variety of definitions in the literature. The further distinctions

– Play Categories, Play Domains, and Social Interaction Distinctions of Play – allow for more

specific definitions, including those pertaining to agency.

A few Scholars commented on Spontaneous Play, as they felt that it was not different


enough from Free Play to be its own category. One commented that what seems to separate it

was that the child is free from “formal institutionalized areas”, but they were unclear about what

that meant. To address this, I added a footnote: “Institutionalized areas refers to places where

there are a concrete set of rules that inherently impact a child’s sense of freedom (e.g., school,

places of worship).” Another pointed out that adults are inherently involved in play, as they set

the time frame: “Even in building a fort from couch pillows, an adult usually tells kids when it is

bedtime.” With this in mind, there wouldn’t be enough to distinguish between Spontaneous Play

and Free Play. I went back to the rubric to better distinguish between these two categories,

according to this feedback. I found the distinction about the materials to be an important one that

was unclear, so I spent time altering this for clarity. During Spontaneous Play, adults play no role

in the materials, whereas in Free Play, since it occurs at school, the adults oversee what materials

are involved. The child creates the materials used for play – whether literally or through the

invention of creative ways to use materials in a different way than they were intended to be used

by the adults who made them during Spontaneous Play. For example, if a child uses kitchen

utensils to make music, an adult made those utensils, and the adults in the home purchased them,

however the child is using them in a different way than they were intended to be used.

Before I analyzed feedback, Object Play was defined as a Play Domain. It was included

because of its significant presence in the literature. However, one scholar challenged this, noting

that materials in Science and Environmental Play, for example, are also “objects”. This caused

me to re-evaluate this Play Domain, eventually deciding to remove it as it does not fall into a

domain of learning and development, as the others do.

Two scholars commented on the Social Interaction Distinctions of Play. Originally, this

part of the ERPEC was called Social Levels of Play. A scholar pointed out that levels made them


think about developmental levels, like Mildred Parten’s Stages of Play. Parten’s Stages of Play

indicate the level of social interaction a child has during play, in a way that relates how a child

develops to mature social interaction in play (Parten & Newhall, 1943). Another scholar asked if

I had considered inserting Parten’s stages in this section, instead of creating my own. I reflected

on these suggestions and decided to add in parts of Parten’s stages (Parallel Play) and make this

section of the rubric clearer. However, the ERPEC is meant to be a tool that can be used to name

and define play objectively, rather than a tool used to track how mature a child’s play may be or

to suggest that one type of play may be better than another, like Parten’s work does. For

example, Parten’s first stage of play is Solitary Play, which she states is normal for children 0-2-

years-old. However, research suggests that there are benefits to Solitary Play at all ages (Luckey

& Fabes, 2005). So in the ERPEC, Solitary Play is just one Social Interaction Distinction of Play,

not seen as better or worse than any of the others. To make it clear that all distinctions in this

category were equal – not leveled – I changed the name to Social Interaction Distinctions of Play

from Social Interaction Levels of Play. In the iteration of ERPEC that was sent to the

Practitioners and Scholars, Age and Group Size were not sub-distinctions. To make it clear that

an Age and Group Size sub-distinction should be chosen for every unique play name and

definition, I clearly divided these on the ERPEC with a footnote that stated that one term from

each sub-distinction should be identified when naming a play experience.

In their responses to my questions, Scholars (3) commented on how the ERPEC fills a

gap in the field by providing a “common language” and “vocabulary” for talking about play

experiences. To “generate and accumulate evidence on the importance of play, it is critical that

we have common languages/terms so that the evidence will have comparability and

replicability”, reflected one Scholar. Another Scholar wrote that they are often asked to define


play in their work and the ERPEC would be a way for them to more easily do that.

The ERPEC, as it stands now, is not necessarily a measurement tool, a Scholar reflected

in their comments. They responded that it is misleading to say that the ERPEC alone will allow

play to be “more reliably measured and analyzed”, as I described in my introduction to the

feedback form. To do this, the ERPEC would need to be accompanied by scales with

quantifiable indicators. This scholar urged me to focus on how the ERPEC uniquely categorizes

play in a meaningful way “based on clear criteria” over any suggestions of measuring play. This

scholar makes a good point. When I stated that the ERPEC would allow for play to be more

reliably measured and analyzed in my rationale, I was referring to the fact that a lack of a

common language impacts how play in early childhood is researched. Without a way to

consistently and uniformly talk and write about the different ways that play can manifest in early

childhood, research to support play is disorganized, confusing, and ultimately less effective than

it would be if the field had a common taxonomy. In providing that taxonomy, the ERPEC

indirectly allows for more effective play measurement and analysis. I updated my rationale

accordingly.

Conclusions

The review of the literature reveals that there are incredible differences between how

scholars, educators, early childhood leaders and parents define play. In fact, Brian Sutton-Smith,

one of the foremost play scholars of the last century, wrote an entire book about the ambiguity of

play (1997). In it, he describes the entrenched disagreement over what constitutes play. He

suggests that disagreements and confusions come from the fact that there are “multiple kinds of

play and multiple kinds of players” (p.7). The organization of play into play types and categories


has been suggested as a way to overcome disagreement, yet a consistent, thorough system to

name and define play is still lacking (Bodrova & Germeroth, 2013; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009;

Reilly, 1978).

The goal of the ERPEC is to fill this gap and, in doing so, address disagreement in the

field. The review of the literature proved confusions about play, but it also revealed themes and

patterns that offered insight into how play could be meaningfully classified. The ERPEC

acknowledges these patterns and themes by moving beyond play’s use as a solitary noun and

verb to include all “kinds of play and... kinds of players” (Sutton-Smith, 1997, p.7). It uniquely

includes most conceptions of play, while still allowing for individual nuances through its

taxonomic system with accompanying definitions.

Play and early childhood scholars have acknowledged that when play is talked about and

researched with greater specificity, we can ask better “questions about where and when particular

types of playful learning might prove predictive of particular outcomes” (Zosh et al., 2018, p.8).

Therefore, the ERPEC, with its specific play definitions, has the potential to help researchers

make connections between certain play experiences and certain learning and development

outcomes. When these connections are made, we will better understand what types of play

should be encouraged at school and at home and, consequently, have the evidence we need to

defend it.

Apart from providing a system of taxonomy for researching play in early childhood, the

ERPEC can also be used in schools to help educators and leaders understand the various ways

that play can materialize in their classroom. Furthermore, educators can use the ERPEC to keep

track of whether they are providing balanced opportunities for all Play Categories and Play

Domains in their classroom.


With the ERPEC, early childhood stakeholders – from the top to the bottom – can better

conceptualize, talk about and advocate for play. Perhaps, someday soon, this will mean that

young children will no longer have to be a part of schoolified classrooms, but playful ones.


References

ACER. (2020). The Learning through Play Experience Tool: Zooming in on the five

characteristics of Learning Through Play. The LEGO Foundation: DK.

Ang, L. (2014). Preschool or Prep School? Rethinking the Role of Early Years Education.

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 185–199.

https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.185

Ashiabi, G. S. (2007). Play in the preschool classroom: Its socioemotional significance and the

teacher’s role in play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 199–207.

Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is Kindergarten the New First Grade? AERA

Bergen, D (1998). Play as a medium for learning and developing: A handbook of theory and

practice. Heinemann

Bergen, D. (2015). Psychological Approaches to the Study of Play. American Journal of Play, 7,

102-128.

Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (2015). Children learning to use technologies through play: A Digital

Play Framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1149–1160.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12191

Benenson, J. F., Tricerri, M., & Hamerman, S. (1999). Characteristics of children who interact in

groups or in dyads. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(4), 461–475.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221329909595559

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New

York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bloom, B.S., Mesia B.B., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (two

https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.185

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12191

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221329909595559

http://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Educational-Objectives-Handbook-Cognitive/dp/0582280109/bigdogsbowlofbis/


vols: The Affective Domain & The Cognitive Domain). New York. David McKay

Bodrova, E., Germeroth, C., & Leong, D. J. (2013). Play and self-regulation: Lessons from

Vygotsky. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 111.

Bodrova, E., and D. J. Leong. (2007). Tools of Mind. The Vygotskian Approach to Early

Childhood Education. Ohio, NJ: Pearson and Merril Prentice Hall

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (2015). Vygotskian and post-Vygotskian views on children’s play.

American Journal of Play, 7, 371-388.

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our

preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [pp. 182-232].

Bradbury, A. (2019). Datafied at four: The role of data in the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood

education in England. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 7–21.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1511577

Brehony, K. J. (2013). Play, Work and Education: Situating a Froebelian Debate (Juego, trabajo

y educación: situando un debate froebeliano). In Online Submission (Vol. 65, Issue 1, pp.

59–77). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555421

Broadhead, P. (2006). Developing an understanding of young children’s learning through play:

The place of observation, interaction and reflection. British Educational Research

Journal, 32(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600568976

Broadhead, P. (2003). Early Years Play and Learning: Developing Social Skills and

Cooperation. Taylor & Francis Group.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/teacherscollege-ebooks/detail.action?docID=181918

Brogaard Clausen, Sigrid. (2015). Schoolification or early years democracy? A cross-curricular

perspective from Denmark and England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 16.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1511577

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555421

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555421

https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600568976

https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600568976



355-373. 10.1177/1463949115616327.

Broström, Stig. (2017). A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education: a possible way to

prevent schoolification. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25:1, 3-15, DOI:

10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196

Brown, S. (2009). Play: how it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul.

New York: Penguin Group.

Chaillé, C., & Britain, L. (2003). The young child as scientist: A constructivist approach to early

childhood science education. Boston: Pearson.

Claessens, A., Duncan, G. J., & Engel, M. (2009). Kindergarten skills and fifth-grade

achievement: Evidence from the ECLS-K. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 415-

427.

Claessens, A., & Engel, M. (2013). How important is where you start? Early mathematics

knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record, 115, 1- 29.

Claessens, A., Engel, M., & Curran, F. C. (2014). Academic content, student learning, and the

persistence of preschool effects. American Educational Research Journal.

Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989), Retrieved from:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Coplan, R. J., Bullock, A., Archbell, K., & Bosacki,S. (2015). Preschool teachers’ attitudes,

beliefs, and emotional reactions to young children’s peer group behaviors. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 30,117–127. doi 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.005

Coplan, R., Rubin, K., & Findlay, L. (2006). Social and Nonsocial Play. In D.P. Fromberg & D.

Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve (2nd edition). New York: Garland

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm


programs serving children from birth through age 8. National Association for the

Education of Young Children.

Dankiw, K. A., Tsiros, M. D., Baldock, K. L., & Kumar, S. (2020). The impacts of unstructured

nature play on health in early childhood development: A systematic review. PLoS ONE,

15(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229006

Elkind, D. (2008). The power of play: Learning what comes naturally. American Journal of Play.

Enz, B. & Christie, J. F. (1993). Teacher’s Play Interaction Styles and Their Impact on

Children’s

Oral Language and Literacy Play. 34.

Erdogan, N. I., Johnson, J. E., Dong, P. I., & Qiu, Z. (2019). Do Parents Prefer Digital Play?

Examination of Parental Preferences and Beliefs in Four Nations. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 47(2), 131–142.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1007/s10643-018-0901-2

Fein, G.G. (1981). Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child Development, 52(4),

1095-1118.

Fisher, K.R., K. Hirsh-Pasek, N. Newcombe, & R.M. Golinkoff. (2013). “Taking Shape:

Supporting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Geometric Knowledge Through Guided Play.”

Child Development 84 (6): 1872–78.

Fleer, M. (2019). Scientific Playworlds: A Model of Teaching Science in Play-Based Settings.

Research in Science Education, 49(5), 1257–1278.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9653-z

Fuller, B. (2007). Standardized childhood: The political and cultural struggle over early

education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229006

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1007/s10643-018-0901-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9653-z


Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.


Gold, Z. S., Elicker, J., Kellerman, A. M., Christ, S., Mishra, A. A., & Howe, N. (2021).

Engineering Play, Mathematics, and Spatial Skills in Children with and without

Disabilities. Early Education and Development, 32(1), 49–65.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1709382

Gomes, J., & Fleer, M. (2019). The Development of a Scientific Motive: How Preschool Science

and Home Play Reciprocally Contribute to Science Learning. Research in Science

Education, 49(2), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9631-5

Gray, P. (2008, November 19). The Value of Play I: The Definition of Play Gives Insights.

Gunnarsdottir, Bryndis. (2014). From play to school: are core values of ECEC in Iceland being

undermined by ‘schoolification’?, International Journal of Early Years Education, 22:3,

242-250, DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2014.960319

Harlin, R. & Brown, C.P. (2006) Issues in Education: A Universal Early Childhood Education

System, Childhood Education, 83 (1), 44-47.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale.

Revised Edition. Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Hassinger-Das, B. Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2017). The case of brain science

and guided play: A developing story. National Association for the Education of Young

Children (NAEYC), 72(2).

Heckman, J. J. J., Krueger, A. B., & Friedman, B. M. (2004). Inequality in America. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press

Huffman, L. R., & Speer, P. W. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role


https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1709382

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9631-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9631-5


of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2),

167–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00048-X

Hughes, B. (2002). A Playworker’s Taxonomy of Play Types. 2nd ed. London: PlayLink

Hunsaker, E., & West, R. E. (2020). Designing Computational Thinking and Coding Badges for

Early Childhood Educators. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve

Learning, 64(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00420-3

Jones, E. & Reynolds, G. (2011). The Play's the Thing: Teachers' Roles in Children's Play. 2nd

ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Johnsen, E.P. & Christie, J.F. (1986). Pretend play and logical operations. In K. Blanchard (Ed.).

The many faces of play (pp. 50-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Johnson, R. Burke and Onwuegbuzie, Anthony. 2004. “Mixed Research: A Research Paradigm

Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14-26

Kostelnik, Marjorie J., et al. (2015). Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum: Best Practices in

Early Childhood Education. 6th ed., Pearson.

LEGO. (2017). What we mean by: Learning through Play. The LEGO Foundation: DK.

Lester, S. & Russell, W. (2010). Children’s Right to Play: An Examination of the Importance of

Play in the Lives of Children Worldwide. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M.

(2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence.

Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1–34. doi:10.1037/a0029321

Lowenberg, A. (2015). Why Elementary School Principals Matter. New America.

Luckey, A. J., & Fabes, R. A. (2005). Understanding Nonsocial Play in Early Childhood. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 33(2), 67–72.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00048-X

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00048-X

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00420-3

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00420-3

https://tc.instructure.com/courses/10952/files/714913/download?wrap=1





https://doi-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0054-6

Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). The persistence of preschool effects: Do

subsequent classroom experiences matter? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1),

18-38.

Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new

classification. Early Years, 36(3), 242–253.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1167675

Mccabe, L., & Sipple, J. (2011). Colliding Worlds: Practical and Political Tensions of

Prekindergarten Implementation in Public Schools. Educational Policy - EDUC POLICY,

25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810387415

McClintic, S., & Petty, K. (2015). Exploring Early Childhood Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices

About Preschool Outdoor Play: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher

Education, 36(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.997844

Miller, E. & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.

Alliance for Childhood, National Society for the Study of Education.

Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Preschool experience in 10 countries:

Cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

21(3), 313–331. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.0

NAEYC (2019). Position Statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice: 2019.

Nell, M. L., & Drew, W. F. (n.d.). Five Essentials to Meaningful Play. Retrieved from

https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/families/five-essentials-meaningful-play

Nilsen, T. R. (2021). Pedagogical intentions or practical considerations when facilitating

children's play? Teachers' beliefs about the availability of play materials in the indoor

https://doi-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0054-6

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810387415

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810387415

https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.997844

https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.997844

https://psycnet-apa-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/doi/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.007

https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/families/five-essentials-meaningful-play


ECEC environment. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1).

Parten, M., & Newhall, S. M. (1943). Social behavior of preschool children. In Child behavior

and development: A course of representative studies (pp. 509–523). McGraw-Hill.

https://doi.org/10.1037/10786-029

Parker, R., & Thomsen, B. (2019). Learning through play at school: A study of playful integrated

pedagogies that foster children’s holistic skills development in the primary school

classroom. LEGO Foundation. https://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/22

Petelczyc, C. A., Capezio, A., Wang, L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Aquino, K. (2018). Play at Work:

An Integrative Review and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management, 44(1),

161–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317731519

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Pineado-Burns, H.(2020). Thinking Outside the Woods: Teacher Stories of Urban Nature and

Inviting the Wild into the City Classroom. In Han, M. & Johnson, J. E. (Ed.), Play and

the Curriculum: Play & Culture Studies (Vol. 15, pp. 113–128). Hamilton Books.

Pyle, A. & Danniels, E. (2017). A Continuum of Play-Based Learning: The Role of the Teacher

in Play-Based Pedagogy and the Fear of Hijacking Play, Early Education and

Development, 28:3, 274-289, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771

Reilly, M. (1974). Play as Exploratory Learning: Studies of Curiosity Behavior. Sage

Publications.

Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152–156.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437704

Ring, E., & O’Sullivan, L. (2018). Dewey: A panacea for the ‘schoolification’ epidemic.

Education 3-13, 46(4), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1445474

https://doi.org/10.1037/10786-029

https://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/22

https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437704

https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1445474

https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1445474


Sahlberg, P., & Doyle, W. (2019). Let the children play: how more play will save our schools

and help children thrive. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University

Press.

Schulte, C. M., & Thompson, C. M. (2018). Communities of Practice: Art, Play, and Aesthetics

in Early Childhood. Springer International Publishing AG.


Soderman, A. K. & Farrell, P. (2008). Creating Literacy-Rich Preschools and Kindergartens.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stipek, D. (2006). No child left behind comes to preschool. Elementary School Journal, 106(5),

455-466.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional

approaches on young children's achievement and motivation. Child development,

66(1), 209-223.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

TRUCE. (2018, June 28). Infant and Toddler Play and Toy Guide. Retrieved from

http://www.truceteachers.org/uploads/1/5/5/7/15571834/infant_toddler_play_and_toy_gi

de_2018_final_6-28-18.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2010).

Caring and Learning Together. Paris: UNESCO.

Van Horn, M. L., & Ramey, S. L. (2003). The Effects of Developmentally Appropriate Practices

on Academic Outcomes among Former Head Start Students and Classmates, Grades 1-3.

American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 961–990

Vygotsky, L. (1978, original essay published in 1933). The Role of Play in Development. In M.



Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Mind in Society: The

Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 92-104).

Wellhousen, K., & Kieff, J. E. (2001). A constructivist approach to block play in early

childhood.

Delmar/Thomson Learning.

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh, P. K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals

Meet a Playful Pedagogy. Mind, Brain & Education, 7(2), 104–112. https://doi-

org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

Whinnett, J. (2012). Gifts and Occupations: Froebel’s Gifts (Wooden Block Play) and

Occupations (Construction and Workshop Experiences) Today. In Bruce, T. (Ed.), Early

childhood practice: Froebel today (pp. 117-130). SAGE.

Wood, E. A. (2014). Free choice and free play in early childhood education: troubling the

discourse. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(1), 4–18. https://doi-

org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.830562

Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., … Whitebread, D.

(2018). Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum. Frontiers in

psychology, 9, 1124. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0112

Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E.J., Jensen, H., Liu, C.,Neale, D., Hirsch-Pasek, K., Solis, S.L., &

Whitebread, D. (2017). Learning through play: A review of the evidence (white paper).

The LEGO Foundation, DK.

https://doi-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

https://doi-org.tc.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

EXPLANATORY RUBRIC FOR PLAY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD

Appendix: Presenting the Explanatory Rubric for Play in Early Childhood (ERPEC)

Overarching Definition of Play in Early Childhood: During a play experience, a child enjoys using creative thinking while interacting with people, materials and/or

the environment in order to understand and learn about their world.3

Within the overarching definition of play, there are four play categories, presented below. These categories are defined based on the level of freedom the child has

in their play experience, according to the role of the adult, role of the child and the source of motivation and materials. As each category of play may lead to a

unique outcome on a child’s learning and development, it is imperative to include the play category when researching and reporting on play in early childhood.

PLAY CATEGORIES4

Spontaneous Play Free Play Guided Play5 Structured Play6

Summary Play experiences are completely

child-initiated and child-directed.


learning objective, but learning is

inherent to the process.

Play experiences are child-initiated and

child-directed. However, adults provide

the materials and may limit the time frame. There is no predetermined learning

objective, but learning is inherent to the

process.

Play experiences are adult-

initiated, but child-directed. There is a set learning objective.

Play experiences are adult-

initiated and adult-directed. These are games or activities

that have inflexible rules and

specific goals that may relate

to a desired learning

outcome.

3 This definition was created using the most frequently described characteristics of play in the literature. 4 These categories cannot overlap. However, a child may move from one category to another and back during the same play experience (for example, if they ask an adult for help during free play,

they shift to guided play). 5 Some scholars would argue that this does not fit their definition of play, as the adults play a role in guiding the child's experience. 6 Many play scholars would argue that this does not fit their definition of play due to lack of freedom and dominating role of the adult.


Adult Role Adults are not involved in the

play experience. Adults are not directly involved in the play

experience but are involved in what

materials are available to the children and

guide the time frame of the play.

Adults provide the materials and

the setting for the play

experience. The adult initiates the

play experience and scaffolds for

the child based on a learning

objective. The adult may play

alongside the child and/or engage

in play-related dialogue with the

goal of enhancing the child’s

learning.

Adults plan, monitor and

control the activity. The

adults create the activity and

determine the rules.

Child Role Children guide their own

learning through free interactions

with materials, their

environment, and peers. Children

are free from all formal

institutionalized areas.7

Children guide their own learning through

free interactions with materials, their

environment, and peers.

Children partake in learning

based on the materials the adult

has provided, as well as adult

feedback.

Children follow the direction

of the adults or the rules

prescribed by the game.

Motivation


motivated. Children are intrinsically motivated. Children may be both

extrinsically and intrinsically

motivated.

Children are extrinsically

motivated (by an adult or

competition).

Materials Materials are open-ended. There

is no adult influence over the

materials used. The child creates

the materials used for play --

whether literally or through the

invention of creative ways to use

materials in a different way than

they were intended to be used by

the adults who made them.

The materials may be freely selected or

created by the child from a set of materials

made available by an adult.

The materials are selected and

provided by the adult and/or

impacts how a child interacts

with the materials.

The materials are provided

by the adult, are fixed, and

are connected to a set of

rules.

Examples Making a fort in the

woods

Playing with objects like dolls or

blocks with no adult interaction Theme-related play Organized sports games

Board games

7 Institutionalized areas refers to places where there are a concrete set of rules that inherently impact a child’s sense of freedom (e.g. school, places of worship).


Playing a make-believe

game with friends

outside or at home

Building a structure with

items found around the

house

Using items from the

kitchen to play music

Sociodramatic play without a

theme

Playing on playgrounds or play

structures

Painting, drawing, creating with

art supplies

“Center time” with materials

put out by the adult

Sociodramatic play where the

adult plays a role

“Learning toys” (e.g.

Montessori toys, Tangram

puzzles)

Curated “learning games”

(e.g. sight word tic-tac-toe,

bingo)

Computer or video games

Within these four play categories, we can find more specific play domains, presented below. These play domains align with domains of learning and development

and can manifest differently according to which play category approach is taken. However, some play domains are more present in certain play categories than

others.

PLAY DOMAINS8

Play Domain Definition Examples

Language and literacy

play Children use words to understand the world and express themselves. Poem writing, storytelling

Science and

Environmental play Children explore characteristics of and relationships between natural

materials. Water table, sand table, science experiments

Physical play Children explore the movement of their bodies and/or use their bodies to

express themselves. Dance, sports, swimming, rough-and-tumble

Math play Children explore mathematical dimensions of the world through interaction

with numbers, shapes and sizes. Sorting, counting, seriating, categorizing items,

Engineering play Children use materials to build something new. Building a block tower, making a “house” with

Legos, building a fort with furniture

Aesthetic play Children use art mediums to express themselves. Painting, drawing, playing music, singing, drama

8 These play domains often overlap and can be used at various points and/or simultaneously during the same play experience.


Digital play Children use technology and digital media to understand the world and

express themselves. Computer games, video games, coding

Dramatic/ Socio-

dramatic play9 Children act out an imagined situation or story. Playing school or house, puppet show

As learning and development outcomes can also vary according to the social interaction distinctions during a play experience, it is important to note who a child

is interacting with during the play experience.

SOCIAL INTERACTION DISTINCTIONS 10

Distinctions11 Sub- Distinctions Description

Same-age The child plays with peer(s) the same age.

Mixed-age The child plays with peer(s) of different ages.

1 Age Adult12 The child plays with an adult.

Adult and peer(s)13 The child plays with both an adult and peers.

Solitary The child plays alone.

2 Group Size Parallel The child plays in parallel with another child/other children.

Partner The child plays with one other child.

Group The child plays with more than one other child.

9 If a child plays alone, this is referred to as Dramatic play. If the child plays with one or more other children, this is referred to as Socio-dramatic play. 10 Social interaction distinctions may overlap and change throughout a play experience. 11 The size of the play group and age of playmates is important, both should be identified when naming a play experience. 12 When naming the play experience, this can be omitted, as its category as guided or structured play will indicate the adult’s presence. 13 When naming the play experience, this can be omitted, as its category as guided or structured play will indicate the adult’s presence.

explanatory rubric for play in early childhood

Documents