Integral Play

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
--Albert Einstein

This survey report will review the background research that supports the notion of ‘Integral Play’, to explain some of the theoretical foundations of ‘Learning through Play’, and to consider its potential promise for wider adoption here in the U.S. I will note various literature on the subject and some models currently being applied in both Asia and Australia. The importance of play in early years learning has been universally acknowledged in academic literature. Friedrick Froebel, the founder of kindergarten, made play an integral part of a child's early education. David Elkind, chair of the Department of Child Development at Tufts University, suggests that “children play for personal, experiential reasons, and any developmental value beside the point.”

It is widely understood that work both now and in the future will be largely about teams and collaborations, hence learning—literacy and numeracy--is fundamentally social and interactive (Hunt, 1969). This said, finding ways—amongst educators--to coordinate approaches to learning strategies, agreed upon values to be emphasized and standardized methodologies--to date--has been challenging in light of the various experimental real-time “laboratories” occurring throughout the advanced world. Indeed, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden...even important American states such as Illinois, currently have running pilot preschool programs and even broader national initiatives that hold great promise in furthering our knowledge as to the efficacy of play in formal pre-school settings. Most of these pilots recognize the importance of toddler/preschool programs and focus on the notion of “Integral Play” as a centerpiece of their framework. As national preschool education initiatives advance—in a quest for a standardization of quality--“integral play” as a framework becomes more critically interesting. Today, most researchers have come to understand child development and the learning process as articulated by the constructivists. However, this view has not been widely translated yet into practice, which motivated my survey. Many kindergarten teachers and parents still believe that young children are not ready for school unless they can recite the alphabet, count, and have the ability to follow instructions from adults. And although maturationist and environmentalist theories also still play a role in our understanding of modern child development, many see these as belonging to an earlier era; at the moment play theorists seem to have every-one’s attention.

According to “Play & Educational Theory & Practice,” by Donald E. Lytle (2003), many new proposed early childhood learning frameworks derive from the constructivists, i.e. social development theories initially developed by Piaget, Montessori and Vygotsky. Most recognize that play is good for children yet are often confused by the dangers seen in the wider environ-ment and so often restrict children's natural opportunities to play. As a result children's play has gained increased awareness amongst a variety of professionals working with children, many of whom have different approaches to play and children. In “The Value of Play” by Perry Else (Continuum, 2009) the Integral Play Framework is represented as a model that draws together differing views on the purpose of play and its various types. It asks, Why do people engage in learning? Is extrinsic motivation enough to make people want to learn in depth? Can learners’ intrinsic concerns be integrated into the what and how models of a fixed linear/sequential curriculum, teacher/textbook, exam-centered education system; or should there be other ways? The capacity of play in generating and facilitating self-searching and promoting self-compelled deep learning by looking into the history of play-as-learning, and reporting on the emerging possibilities of contemporary playful learning systems is still an emerging area within child development academic research.

Indeed, Marcon’s (1990) research showed that, in both short and long term, gains were higher for children who experienced a ‘play based’ early childhood program compared to more structured approaches. Play encourages exploration, risk taking, socialization and engagement in learning. And, through play children can explore and reflect on interests and issues relevant to and meaningful in their lives. Finally, in the Swedish preschool curriculum play is described as an 'omnipresent activity’ and central to children’s learning. Australia’s new Early Years Learning Framework [derived largely from UK academics] recognizes its children as outdoor, active citizens. Play is central. Hence, indoor and outdoor learning environments are seen as equally important for all ages. Its national policy priority is to create “Enabling environments: Learning through exploration, engagement, enquiry, investigation, hands-on real life experiences, risk-taking and problem-solving…as an investment in tomorrow’s workforce. There are significant opportunities for exploration, discovery and learning for children aged birth to 8 years in outdoor environments or play "spaces.” It cites: “The ‘aliveness’ and ‘uniqueness’ of natural outdoor play spaces ensures that with each new day there are new discoveries and new sensations for children to experience (Elliott 2008). And, Dwyer (2007) recommends a combination of large spaces for running, intimate spaces for children to play alone or in a small group; places for water, spaces where children can play above or below others; spaces that give different perspectives of size and location; materials that are flexible and easily manipulated by children; areas that are aesthetically beautiful; places for animals; spaces where children can
easily connect with the natural world and spaces for art works.”

The Australian program, scheduled to be rolled out in July 2009, cites that “Learning theory has become synonymous in many educational contexts with a theory of child development. In these contexts, play is conceptualized as a developmental aid or catalyst in achieving some advanced cognitive stage in which play is less useful. Within this developmental framework, play is best understood as a means to an end and is well defined only as regards its efficacy in achieving that end, which, for one, severely limits research capabilities into the phenomena of play. Moreover, even when its educative value is recognized, play is often assigned a secondary role vis-a-vis work and science, often defined 'play as work' (Makedon, 1991).”

Finally, Jane K. Frobose notes, “Play is the way children learn. Through play, children learn about themselves, their environment, people and the world around them. As they play, children learn to solve problems and to get along with others. They enhance their creativity and develop leadership skills and healthy personalities. Play develops skills children need to learn to read and write. Play in early childhood is the best foundation for success in school. As a child learns to reach, grasp, crawl, run, climb and balance, physical skills are developed. Dexterity develops when the child handles toys or other objects. Language increases as a child plays and interacts with others. A baby's cooing games with parents evolve into the language skills of a child sharing stories. Learning to cooperate, negotiate, take turns and play by the rules are important interpersonal lifetime skills, all of which play fosters. Positive play experiences develop positive emotional well-being. Through play and imagin-ation, a child can fulfill wishes and overcome fears of unpleasant experiences. Play helps the child master the environment. When children feel secure, safe, successful and capable, they acquire important components of positive emotional health.”

Conclusion

Teaching imagination in conjunction with grasping prior state-of-the art knowledge is a huge challenge. We're at once trying to teach innovation as we try to instill a reverance and recognition of prior innovations. And, we find that kids are innately very wise and resourceful. Because active interaction with the environment and others are necessary for learning and development, play theorists [and constructivists generally] believe children are ready for school when they can initiate many of the interactions they have with their environment and those around them. My own anecdotal empirical experience tends to affirm this theoretical foundation. Today most educators pay a lot of attention to the physical environ-ment and the curriculum of the early childhood classroom. Kindergarten classrooms often are divided into different learning centers and are equipped with developmentally appropriate materials for young children to play with and manipulate.

At around age 5-6, most kids are starting an attempt to distinguish cartoon super-hero worlds and the real-physical time space world. Questions like, "Can a giant robot eat the moon in one bite?" or "Are robots the size of mountains real?" are not uncommon. Indeed, "Is Godzilla real?" is a common question. We need to appreciate this transitional stage in its profundity.

Teachers and adults have direct conversations with children, children move actively from center outward, and daily activities are made meaningful through the incorporation of children's experiences into the curriculum. At home, parents engage their young children in reading and storytelling activities and encourage children's partici-pation in daily house hold activities in a way that introduces such concepts as counting and language use. In addition, parents may provide young children with picture books containing very large print, and toys that stimu-late interaction (such as building blocks and large puzzles). After researching this topic of play, I find myself to be largely in agreement with the constructivist view.

References

“Play in child development and psychotherapy” by Sandra Walker Russ

“Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children” by Bernard Spodek, Olivia Saracho

http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/OfficeOfEarlyChildhood/sqs/Pages/EarlyYearsLearningFramework.aspx
http://www.edutopia.org/global-education-japan-research-net

http://www.childresearch.net/

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/columncc/cc010309.html

http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ728251&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ728251

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W48-4BYF686-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2004&_alid=1049908863&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6536&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=864&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cceb566cabc31445443085b3f31e4232<


http://www.blogninja.com/vsw-draft-paolillo-wright-foaf.pdf

>http://www.ceefcares.org/flyers/promotingproblemposingperimeter.pdf


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_graph

Makedon, Alexander. 1991. Reinterpreting Dewey: Some Thoughts on His Views of Science and Play in Education. Annotated article - Chicago State University. http://webs.csu.edu/~big0ama/articles/JohnDewy.html

Rieber, L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology, 38(6), 29-37.

Yannis Karaliotas, “The Element of Play In Learning” (1999)

(Written For Early Childhood Development class with Prof. Zarghami--Spring 2009--at De Anza College)