Background & Rationale

Learning through play

Learning through play is an enjoyable and appropriate way to transition from early childhood into the school years (Biordi & Gardner, 2014). As a pedagogy, learning through play is described as combining playful child-directed activity with teacher or adult supported or guided learning objectives (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2013). Learning through play incorporates free or voluntary play, guided play, construction play, collaborative play, learning through games, physical play, and digital play, among others. Experts have sought to create a continuum of learning through play that spans from free play, to guided play, through to teacher-directed play (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013).

Research has clearly established the benefits of learning through play in fostering child development and learning (Danniels & Pyle, 2018). It seems unclear what becomes of learning through play, and the skills and competencies fostered under this learning condition, when children arrive at the school gates.

There is strong evidence to support the role and benefits of learning through play in the early years of primary school. Play has been particularly linked to fostering foundational skills and knowledge, including supporting literacy, mathematics and science learning (Hill, 2010; Kefaloukos & Bobis, 2011; Mihaljevic, 2005; Stagnitti, Bailey, Hudspeth, Stevenson, Reynolds & Kidd, 2016). Further, as an integrated practice, learning through play also supports children to develop emotional, physical, social, and creative skills.

If we know that evidence supports the role and value of learning through play at school in fostering holistic skills, why is it not adopted consistently and widely?

What becomes of the burgeoning holistic skills learners foster under this condition when they enter a traditional and academically focused school? When we search for explicit mention of ‘play’ or ‘play-based learning’ in school and education policies pertaining to children beyond the age of eight, we generally do not find it.

In early childhood education, play is described as the context for learning (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations, 2009). It performs a pivotal role for children to ‘organise and make sense of their social worlds, as they engage actively with people, objects, and representations’. In formal schooling, however, play does not always occupy a central role as the ‘learning context’. It is often supplementary or implied; used by teachers in support of a broader learning goal, or fostered as a disposition.

For example, in their review of age-appropriate pedagogies for the early years of schooling, the Queensland Government (n.d) summarised existing evidence and concluded with ten key messages including that ‘Playfulness should pervade learning and teaching interactions’. Briggs and Hansen (2012) suggest that play for children aged 5–11 years offers learners the opportunity to practice skills in different contexts across different subject domains. They propose that through play, primary school-aged children can act as learners who are autonomous, socially interactive, creative, investigative, and reflective problem-solvers. These learner roles align closely with the LEGO Foundation’s characteristics and skills associated with learning through play.

This review investigates the role and application of learning through play in the primary school classroom. Numerous studies associate or conflate play-based learning with other approaches, for example, inquiry based learning, or discovery learning, assuming that general or fundamental similarities exist across these approaches. This review unpacks these approaches, adds six more, maps them against learning through play, cites evidence of impact, and describes the various factors that underpin implementation quality. While in the main, the word ‘play’ may be missing from the later primary years, the elements that make play educational are most certainly present in the eight integrated pedagogies discussed in this review.

False dichotomies concerning pedagogies in education research

Research about learning through play provided clear signposts on the interrelatedness of the eight integrated approaches discussed in this review. Play-based learning and approaches such as inquiry based learning, active, and experiential learning are founded on the same learning theories, drawing upon the work of Dewey, Piaget, Montessori and Vygotsky. Central to these theories is the idea that educators and learners work together in partnership to co-construct knowledge. Learning environments are intentionally designed to maximise opportunities to foster creativity, social interaction, experimentation, and a love of learning. Learners and teachers are active and engaged participants in the learning process, and interactions between teachers and learners are varied, with learner and teacher taking turns at directing activity at the appropriate times.

Research concerning teaching strategies abounds with dichotomies and assumptions. Play and learning are often viewed as dichotomous constructs (Pyle & Danniels, 2017). Teacher-directed learning is often cast as inherently passive and unengaging, and inquiry-based or discovery learning as unguided or unstructured, leaving learners to work out key concepts on their own. We propose that any approach can be implemented poorly, generating low learner engagement and passivity, low achievement, and misconceptions. The key is knowing what enabling factors and conditions make the strategy successful in achieving its purpose, and implementing it with full acknowledgement of these.

This is important when considering ‘magic bullets’ for educational improvement. An intervention’s success is contingent on numerous enabling factors: knowing and addressing these is critical to replicating positive results. This study asserts that there are instructional design features that must be present for integrated pedagogies to achieve their purpose. For example, the type and degree of guidance provided by teachers substantially contributes to the success of integrated pedagogies.

There was limited evidence to suggest that minimal guidance was effective in fostering specific competencies. This is not to say that there is no place for minimally guided learner activity at school – learners should experience some degree of choice and freedom within their schedule every day. The overwhelming finding was that using a combination of design features and teacher-student directedness encourages both learners and teachers to be actively engaged in learning. This yields the best results in a wide range of educational outcomes.