I was involved in a Twitter conversation recently in which an early years’ colleague referred to something as being “real play”. I am probably opening a can of worms, but this bothered me and led to this short blog to explain why I think it is unhelpful to refer something as ‘real’ play, with particular reference to early mathematics.
There has been an awful lot written on the value of play, particularly for young children, since Garvey’s 1977 book which sought to broaden our understanding and use of the term within education. However, despite some agreed characteristics, there is no universally agreed definition of play. This is, as Sutton-Smith (2001) argues, because the term ‘play’ encompasses such a huge spectrum of activity from a performance at a theatre and a rugby game to an individual lost in an imaginary world. ‘Play’ is such a widely misunderstood term that some educationalists have recommended we rename such activity that children engage in (but as what?).
Speaking in what Sutton-Smith calls “the rhetoric of play as progress” I think we can all (well nearly all) agree that the research is clear that play is a crucial element of learning, vital for children’s well-being, social adjustment as well as their intellectual and creative development. I believe this to be the case for all learners, not simply those in the earliest years.
But is ‘play’ in the early years different to play in other years, or should it be? Are some sorts of play more ‘real’ than others?
I can identify four key characteristics of play as:
• enjoyable
• engaging
• voluntary, and
• self – directed.
Can I recognise all four characteristics of play when I observe these children engaging in some mathematics? If not, which ones are ‘missing’ and why? Does this matter?
If we take the first two characteristics as givens, it is probably the last two – that play is voluntary and self-directed - where the rub is, and where the word ‘real’ resides.
(image: Esther O'Connor @EstherOConnor5 )
Who initiates play and who has control?
I believe it is perfectly possible for all four characteristics to exist, even if it is the adult that has initiated or initially stimulated the activity. But what is crucial is how I choose to behave with the children. For me, this is the vitally important point that makes something play or not; playful or not. For play to contribute to a child’s well-being, social adjustment, intellectual and creative development (to be ‘real’, if you like) there must be agency on behalf of the player – and as an adult working with young children, I can hand over that agency. The playful situation that I may have set up and even invited children to join, can become voluntary and self-directed by my deliberate stepping back to observe and play alongside, following the children’s lead. Is this not ‘real play’?
In early mathematics we know there must be a balance of adult-directed (teaching) and child-directed (play) activity for effective learning to take place. This is because both feed on and from each other, and there are many opportunities for mathematics within play as well as for play within mathematics. I believe this to be true at all stages of the learning of mathematics and my secondary colleague and friend Mike Ollerton (@MichaelOllerton) have been working together for some years on workshops on playful, exploratory mathematics from early years to adult.
A recent meta-analysis and review of research into play by Skene and her colleagues (2022) refers to a continuum of play with varying degrees of child autonomy and adult guidance, with ‘guided play’ at the intersection of play and guidance:
“Guided play is believed to offer a powerful vehicle for early learning, as it harnesses the motivation and exploration that children benefit from during free play and a Vygotskian-inspired recognition that children's learning and development can be extended when effectively supported or ‘guided’ by an experienced partner.”
(Skene et al 2022:1)
This sounds exciting to me. Skene identifies the following three aspects when defining guided play:
· having a clear, overall learning goal which the adult keeps in mind (knowing why we are doing what we are doing)
· including adult guidance in the form of sensitive hints, open-ended questions, or challenges, or guiding a child's attention by modelling, joining in the play, and adapting to the individual needs, interests, and understanding of the child (knowing all the different ‘how’s of what we do and knowing our children)
And, thirdly and importantly,
· prioritising child autonomy, with the children having some freedom and choice over their own actions (knowing that even if I am guiding the play, I have to hand the child control).
(Image: Maeve Birdsall @OakwoodEY)
Guided play differs to ‘free play’ and maybe this is what is meant by ‘real’. Free play can be defined as play which is initiated and directed by a child with no specified learning goal or adult involvement. Is guided play any less ‘real’ than free play? It is certainly no less important, that I am sure about. My discomfort with the word ‘real’ is that it might de-value anything other than free play, when I believe that what is essential for something to be play is that the child exerts control over what plays out.
For me what is important is that the participants’ feel that the thinking as well as the mathematics is theirs, rather than mine. This sense of agency is important in building confident and competent mathematicians and in my experience, it is often what is missing when we plan mathematics for our children. Being playful is, for me, important in assigning agency and control.
I tend to use the word ‘playful’ instead of ‘play’ as I believe that what matters is that all mathematical interactions are enjoyable, engaging and involve a sharing of control. For me, what is important is that I am flexible each time I interact with children mathematically, that I allow them the space and time to play with what I am offering them. Moreover, that I neither pretend something is play or playful when it is not, nor ignore my role in assigning agency and competence at every opportunity, even during adult-led taught sessions.
I know free play is essential, but guided play is no less ‘real’ and is equally important in early mathematics.
I also know that all play is being currently undermined, particularly in Reception. Knowing how essential play is, what are we each doing about this?
Simon Gregg (@Simon_Gregg) Maeve Birdsall (@Oakwood EY) and Esther O'Connor (@EsterOConnor5) are three amazing practitioners living mathematical play in their classrooms every day. I recommend you give them a follow.
My book “Playful Mathematics for Children 3 to 7” is published by SAGE: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playful-Mathematics-children-3-7/dp/1529755158/ref=asc_df_1529755158/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=534859762239&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6690281439717655977&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045283&hvtargid=pla-1463149919650&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
References:
Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Sutton-Smith B. (2001). The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C. M., Byrne, E. M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E. C., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 00, 1–19