The new mandate for kindergarten classrooms in Ontario includes teaching academic conceptsthrough play-based learning. Restricting views on play and learning to direct instruction versus freeplay, with a type of adult-guided play emphasized as child led somewhere in the middle, is toorestrictive to encompass different play-based learning strategies used by teachers in the classroom.Child-directed play, collaboratively created play, and teacher-directed play all present importantopportunities for personal, social, and academic growth. However, teachers’ views regarding if andwhen they should intervene during play continue to be diverse, and some teachers almost exclusivelydemonstrated one type of play in their classrooms: free play. It is hoped that this continuum, with abroader and more concrete definition of play-based learning, will help to enhance the practice ofplay-based learning pedagogies for kindergarten teachers and the study of their benefits in the earlyyears.

If the end goal is to teach children the fundamentalacademic skills included in the current curriculum, doing so through this broader view of play-basedlearning is an engaging and developmentally appropriate manner of teaching for kindergarten-agechildren. However, every mandated shift in pedagogical focus provides a challenge to teachers, whoare required to adjust their classroom practices. The adjustment required by the implementation ofplay-based learning, especially for those teachers who currently strictly view play as a context for thedevelopment of personal and social skills, is dramatic. The training in the use of play in kindergartenclassrooms described by the participating teachers is minimal, and thus the challenges faced by theseteachers are plentiful. Increased training in a broader interpretation of play-based learning andpractical methods for its enactment would benefit teachers’ implementation of this approach.

Although all nine teachers who expressed the belief that academic skills can be taught throughplay discussed the use of inquiry play, only five classrooms actually demonstrated this type of playduring the observational period. Inquiry play is explicitly recommended in the Ontario full-daykindergarten program document (OME, 2011) as an important play-based learning strategy. Currentresearch on adult-guided play, emphasized as a child-led practice (e.g., Berk & Meyers, 2013;Goouch, 2008; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, et al., 2013; Weisberg, Zosh, et al., 2013), tends to restrictthe definition of play-based learning to inquiry play. Brooker (2011) stated that what is mosteffective for kindergarten-age children is “supported play and instruction based on children’sobserved interests” (p. 139). However, our participants commented on the challenge of meetingexplicit learning goals from the curriculum through building on the children’s interests and follow-ing their lead. All other types of play on the continuum were observed more frequently than inquiryplay, highlighting the need to expand the definition of play-based learning beyond inquiry playalone, along with the potential need for further guidance and practical knowledge for kindergartenteachers on implementing inquiry play in the classroom

In the current study, 15 classrooms were examined and two different pedagogical philosophiesemerged. Six teachers shared the perspective that play and learning are dichotomous constructs.These teachers saw play as an activity engaged in without adult interference, which positivelyinfluences children’s personal and social development. These teachers commented on the challengespresent in finding a balance between meeting academic demands and following a play-based learningapproach. Concerns emerged regarding adult involvement in play but also regarding how to teachcurricular expectations in a child-led environment. When teachers endorsed the idea that play-basedlearning is fundamentally a child-directed activity (e.g., Berk & Meyers, 2013; Goouch, 2008;Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, et al., 2013; Weisberg, Zosh, et al., 2013), it follows that teachers felt concernover meeting academic standards without imparting direction during times of play. When play andlearning become a dichotomy, learning is restricted to small- and large-group direct instructionwhile play is limited to child-directed free play.Alternatively, nine teachers saw play as both a developmentally appropriate activity and one thatcould support the learning of academic skills beyond direct instruction by helping to internalizenewly taught concepts in a motivating context. These teachers endorsed the view that they occupy animportant role in children’s play. These nine classrooms demonstrated approximately the sameamount of time spent in play as the other six classrooms; however, they demonstrated morevariation in the types of play observed. These teachers supported times of uninterrupted child-ledplay (free play) along with times for guiding and extending children’s play through followingchildren’s lead and expanding on their interests (inquiry play), creating contexts of play together(collaborative play), setting up prescribed activities that contained playful elements (playful learn-ing), and constructing games with explicit rules for the children to follow (learning through games).These teachers discussed the importance of extending child-led play scenarios in order to facilitatethe teaching of academic skills but also the importance of creating play contexts with the childrenand even directing some play contexts so that children not naturally inclined to integrate academicskills into play could be presented with opportunities to learn in a fun and engaging manner.Although there is general agreement that play belongs in the kindergarten classroom, what thisplay consists of is a contentious issue among teachers and researchers alike. The role of play in theclassroom is often discussed in terms of its relationship to educational purpose. When the purpose ofkindergarten is considered to be social in nature and child-directedness is the focus, free play isadvocated. However, when the purpose of schooling is the introduction of a targeted set of skills,more structured play is considered more appropriate (Kuschner, 2015). Given the standards-basedcurricula that are currently implemented in kindergarten classrooms, the mandated purpose clearlyaligns with the latter belief, and thus a broader conception of classroom-based play is warranted.However, to acknowledge the value of child-directed free play to children’s social and self-regulatorydevelopment (Barnett et al., 2008; Berk & Meyers, 2013), the proposed continuum preserves this typeof play while integrating teacher-involved play-based learning. This broadened perspective not onlyaligns with current policy but also aligns with and makes more concrete the position of the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) that describes the need for the integra-tion of varying types of play within a classroom environment (NAEYC, 2009).

Learning through GamesThe final and most prescriptive type of play-based learning is learning through games. This type ofplay was implemented in all nine classrooms to promote the development of discrete math andlanguage skills. In this manner, teachers sought to make the learning of these mandated academicstandards more engaging for the students: “There are always some academic things that we have todeal with too. We do try to make it engaging” (Participant 3). One of the ways in which theseteachers promoted this engagement was through the playing of games. “Because then it is a game.We are not learning. We are playing” (Participant 7). In these play episodes the teacher directed theoutcomes and prescribed the process while the children followed the rules of the games. Forinstance, the students in Class 5 played Words With Friends, a game that involved using lettertiles to spell words and names on a game board. Students in Classes 6 and 9 played word and letterbingo, whereas in Classes 12 and 14 the students went fishing for letters with their magnetic fishingpoles. Math games were also prevalent in several of the classrooms. Class 2 played Go Fish withnumber cards, whereas in Class 12 students used Play-Doh to make the assigned number of wormsand place them in the scene on themed placemats.In these nine classrooms, multiple types of play were integrated. These variations of play providedthe opportunity for both play and play-based learning. The play episodes were child directed andfree from the confines of academic standards. The play-based learning activities involved varyinglevels of teacher involvement and integrated varying degrees of academic learning.

Playful LearningThe integration of academic skills into collaboratively created contexts of play was possible andexpertly accomplished in these nine classrooms; however, there were skills that students wereexpected to learn that did not naturally present themselves during play. To integrate these skills,teachers communicated the need for a more structured approach: playful learning. This approachwas intended to support the learning of targeted academic skills in a manner that was playful andengaging for the students:It’s doing it in a way that they don’t realize they’re being taught and that they’re learning. They just thinkthey’re playing. They just think they’re having fun. They’re not realizing the math they’re getting and thelanguage they’re getting. (Participant 2)In all nine classrooms, we observed playful learning episodes with teacher-directed academicoutcomes in which the children still influenced the play narrative. For instance, in Class 12 theteacher created a flower shop. The teacher constructed order forms and children filled out the foursections (flower type, flower color, extras like balloons, and the total cost) before submitting it to theshopkeeper. The shopkeeper, whose role also included writing the amounts on each type of flower sothe customers could use this information on their order forms, then processed and filled customers’orders. These were prescribed activities within this context of play that provided practice with mathand literacy concepts that were part of the whole-class instruction. However, children also main-tained control over some aspects of the play, including requesting flowers for the event of theirchoosing. One group of students requested flowers for a picnic: They purchased their arrangementaccording to the prescribed instructions and then played out the picnic event, enjoying their playfood with their flowers as the centerpiece.

Collaborative PlayIn collaborative play there is a shared locus of control. Teachers direct the outcomes of this play bydetermining the academic skills that students will develop. The teacher and students collaborativelydesign the context of the play, including both the theme and the resources necessary to the play. Thechildren then direct the play within the created environment. For instance, in one classroom weobserved the creation of a veterinary clinic. The children’s interest in animals was the inspiration forthe creation of this context of play, which began as a pet shop and then transformed into a veterinaryclinic. The classsuggested it and thought about what things we needed to put in it . . . then we had a secondary discussion aboutwhat it is looking like and what we are liking about the pet shop and what we are not liking about it. Then weadded the medical component, the vet part. (Participant 6)During our observations, students played at this center during every playtime. They wereobserved waiting with their “pets” in the waiting room, acting as the veterinarians who used medicalequipment (e.g., stethoscopes, masks, play needles), and acting as receptionists who booked appoint-ments for the animals. The integration of a number of academic skills was observed at the veterinaryclinic: the reading of books to inform proper treatment of the pets’ injuries or illnesses, the writing ofinstructions by veterinarians for pet parents, and the recording of appointments by receptionists.The teacher provided guidance concerning these skills as extensions to children’s play. For instance,a group of children were trying to determine whether an animal had broken its leg. The teacherjoined this conversation and introduced the concept of an x-ray machine. She assisted as thestudents did some research about x-ray machines on a tablet and then provided the materialsnecessary for children to build their own. The students subsequently drew bones from actual x-rayimages and labeled the machine and x-rays to ensure proper use by the other students. Thiscollaboratively created context of play provided opportunities for both child-directed play narrativesaccompanied by natural opportunities for the teacher to integrate academic skills. Although theveterinary clinic primarily provided the opportunity for the development of literacy skills, otherobserved collaboratively created contexts of play supported the development of other academic skills.For instance, in Class 2 they created a haunted house where ticket sales provided opportunities tolearn math concepts, including coin identification, making change, addition, and subtraction.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 283

Inquiry PlaySimilar to free play, in inquiry play the locus of control remained largely with the child. This type ofplay was child initiated, and, in response to child interests, teachers extended the play through theintegration of related academic standards. For instance, during one of our observations in Classroom14 a paper airplane flew right into the middle of a guided reading lesson. Rather than dissuading thisactivity, the teacher helped the pair of students create a runway where paper airplanes could bethrown safely and without interrupting the activities of others. As other children watched this pair ofboys throwing their airplanes, they began to construct and fly their own. The teacher embraced thiscommon interest and brought in books about airplanes, including some that contained instructionsfor building far more complicated paper aircrafts. The children began to vary the styles of theirairplanes, testing which would fly farther. The teacher then introduced both standard and non-standard measurement tools so that children could determine how far their planes could fly. Alongwith this knowledge, concern grew over how to keep the folds of their airplanes from coming apartduring flight. At this point, the teacher introduced the scientific method, suggesting that they test outdifferent adherents (e.g., tape, glue, staples) to determine which would facilitate the farthest flight.This type of play is explicitly discussed in the Ontario full-day kindergarten program documentFigure 1. Continuum of play-based learning.282 A. PYLE AND E. DANNIELS

Free PlayMuch like in the previous group of classrooms, free play was the dominant type of play observed. Ofthe 394 episodes of play observed in these classrooms 60% were free play (SD = 15.7). Duringepisodes of free play, the children directed their own play narratives and determined the resources tobe used. There was little to no teacher involvement in the structure of the play. The most commontype of free play observed was building; the second most common was playing with toys such asdinosaurs and vehicles; and the third most common was the use of sensory materials such as sand,water, and Play-Doh. Though free play continued to dominate as the most frequent type of play, thepercentage of time spent in free play was 25% lower in these classes than the 86% of time spent infree play in the first group of classes, though the number of play episodes did not diminish. That is, acomparable amount of time was spent in play in both groups of classrooms, but the play-basedlearning classrooms had more variation in the types of play observed.

Play-based Learning in the Kindergarten ClassroomThe teachers in nine of the participating classrooms communicated their perspectives concerningboth the developmental and the educative values of play. These teachers embraced a holisticperspective of play, stating that play in a classroom environment “gives them the opportunity togrow physically, emotionally, socially, and cognitively” (Participant 12). These teachers embracedplay both as its own developmentally appropriate activity and as a pedagogical tool that had thepotential to support children’s learning of academic skills. Play was described as a valuable learningactivity in and of itself that gave children the “freedom to explore, to make mistakes, to investigate,280 A. PYLE AND E. DANNIELS

Six of the participating teachersreflected this ideology, sharing the perspective that play and academic learning are dichotomousconstructs. These participants expounded the developmental appropriateness of play and primarilydescribed the purpose of play as supporting the personal and social development of the children intheir classes

These six teachers described the learning of academic skills primarily in didactic terms, empha-sizing that the learning of academic concepts required direct teacher instruction and that thisinstruction did not occur in the context of play

Other teachers shared this perspective, stating that trying to find a balance between the academicexpectations of the kindergarten curriculum and the play-based pedagogical approach that ismandated in Ontario kindergarten classrooms presented a continuous challenge

In total, we observed 227 play episodes in these six classrooms, and 86% of these episodes werefree play. This percentage of free play was consistent across all classes (SD = 9.9). The most commontype of free play observed in all six classrooms was building (e.g., big blocks, Lego), playing with toys(e.g., cars, dinosaurs) was the second most common type of play observed, and the third mostcommon was sensory play (e.g., water and sand tables, Play-Doh). Free play episodes were entirelychild directed, with no involvement of the teacher through the construction of the play environment(excluding the provision of resources), the guiding of play, or the extension of play episodes throughquestioning and/or feedback.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 279

Another teacher took this concern further, describing her concern that children should not beexpected to inherently integrate this learning into their play: “We are leaving too much to the kidsand I think at this age, not a lot of the kids are ready” (Teacher 11).In these six classrooms, play was dichotomized from academic learning. An activity was definedas play only when it was directed by children and was exempt from adult interference. The learningof academic skills occurred through teacher-directed learning opportunities (e.g., small-group orwhole-class instruction). Because they perceived play to be a child-directed construct and theyexpressed the belief that children did not naturally integrate the necessary academic learning intotheir play, these teachers struggled to negotiate the necessary balance between a play-based pedago-gical approach and the prescribed academic standards. Although they integrated play into theirclassrooms, the expressed dichotomization of play and academic learning meant they did notintegrate the play-based learning pedagogical approach that is mandated by the Ministry ofEducation in Ontario.