the challenges of promoting literacy within a play …...literacy integration within a play-based...

TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca

The Challenges of Promoting Literacy Integration within a Play-based Learning

Kindergarten Program: Teacher Perspectives and Implementation

Angela Pyle, Daniel Poliszczuk and Erica Danniels

Version Post-print/Accepted Manuscript

Citation (published

version)

Angela Pyle, Daniel Poliszczuk & Erica Danniels (2018) The Challenges of Promoting Literacy Integration Within a Play-Based Learning Kindergarten Program: Teacher Perspectives and Implementation, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32:2, 219-233, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2017.1416006

Publisher’s Statement

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Research and Child Education on January 19th 2018, available online:�http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10.1080/02568543.2017.1416006

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace

because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

The Challenges of Promoting Literacy Integration within a Play-based Learning Kindergarten Program: Teacher Perspectives and Implementation

Abstract

Kindergarten teachers face the challenge of balancing traditional developmental

programming and contemporary academic standards. In classrooms following a play-based

learning framework, academic content such as literacy is to be taught within children’s play.

However, educators have reported both conceptual and practical challenges with integrating play

and literacy. Although the educative contexts of direct instruction, teacher-guided play, and

child-directed free play have been individually examined and endorsed for promoting early

literacy, the enactment of literacy behaviours across these contexts in kindergarten has not been

widely examined. The current study investigated teacher perspectives on play and literacy

development and the resulting integration of literacy behaviours across educative contexts. Semi-

structured teacher interviews and video data were collected in 12 participating classrooms.

Results revealed three common challenges with integrating play and literacy learning: direct

instruction plays a key instructional role, play is less structured and difficult to plan, and feeling

uncertain how to implement guided play. These challenges were reflected in the differing

frequencies of literacy behaviours observed across contexts. These results point to the need for

additional research and teacher training with respect to implementing guided play for literacy

learning, as well as strategies for balancing direct instruction with play-based approaches.

Keywords

play; kindergarten; literacy; pedagogy; teacher perspectives

ChallengesofLiteracy&Play

2

Introduction

There is compelling evidence that children’s play has an important role in the

development of language and literacy during the early years (Roskos & Christie, 2013).

Accordingly, some early learning curricula have positioned play as a foundational context for

academic learning (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2016). However, research

examining teacher perspectives and practices while enacting play-based learning curricula have

uncovered some challenges with respect to integrating play and literacy learning (e.g., Baker,

2014; Pui-Wah & Stimpson, 2004). Although some educators endorse play as a vehicle for

learning, many continue to utilize primarily direct instruction methods for teaching early

academic skills, with varying possible reasons for this discrepancy suggested by researchers

(Foote, Smith, & Ellis, 2004; Hegde & Cassidy, 2009). A range of educative contexts commonly

observed in play-based kindergarten have been shown in the literature to demonstrate efficacy

for literacy learning; namely, direct teacher instruction, teacher-guided play, and child-directed

free play (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Han, Moore, Vukelich, & Buell, 2010; Van Oers &

Duijkers, 2013). However, the use of these different contexts to support literacy learning in

naturalistic classroom settings has not been widely examined. Insights about the occurrence of

literacy behaviours across these educative contexts, alongside teacher perspectives on the

benefits and/or challenges of each context for literacy learning, can help to illuminate factors

influencing teachers’ pedagogical decisions within the mandated play-based learning framework.

The current study investigated teacher perspectives on the integration of literacy learning in play-

based kindergarten, alongside observed classroom practices with respect to the enactment of a

range of literacy behaviours within three educative contexts: direct instruction, guided play, and

free play.


3

Literature Review

Play-Based Learning

Kindergarten education has endured significant curricular changes in recent years,

including a shift towards incorporating more prescriptive academic standards (Hargreaves &

Goodson, 2006) as well as a shift towards the promotion of play-based learning pedagogy

(Synodi, 2010). Historically, children’s play has occupied an important role in the kindergarten

classroom as traditional conceptions emphasized the importance of teachers nurturing children’s

early personal and social development through student-centered activities and allowing children

to develop at their own pace (Manning, 2005). Literacy skills were often targeted more formally

through direct instruction or immersion in literacy tasks in the primary grades (Pressley et al.,

1998). However, in more recent decades, movements towards prescribed academic standards and

accountability in education have resulted in an increase in formal literacy expectations at the

kindergarten level (Miller & Almon, 2009). While historically play and learning have been

viewed as separate endeavours (Pramling Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006), educators are now

faced with the task of integrating academics and play in order to meet current curricular

mandates (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2016). A growing body of research has

provided both theoretical and empirical evidence for the use of play-based learning strategies to

support areas of development and learning, including social competence (Binder, 2014), self-

regulation abilities (De La Riva & Ryan, 2015), mathematics (Casey et al., 2008), and literacy

skills (Sharp, Escalante, & Anderson, 2012). Research has demonstrated that students in

classrooms utilizing play-based pedagogies have outperformed students in classrooms primarily

utilizing direct instruction in numeracy (Presser, Clements, Ginsburg, & Ertle, 2015), literacy

(Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013), and general cognitive outcomes (Walsh et al., 2006). However, a


4

lack of agreement is evident among researchers regarding the types of play-based learning

endorsed and the optimal role of the teacher in play (Pyle, DeLuca, & Danniels, 2017).

Recent qualitative research has revealed varying perspectives and interpretations of play-

based learning among educators in the kindergarten classroom. While some teachers have been

found to endorse the concept of learning through play and advocate for adult involvement in

children’s play, others have communicated challenges with integrating play with academic

learning and conceptualize play as a purely child-directed endeavour (Pui-Wah, 2008; Pyle &

Bigelow, 2015). Furthermore, many practical challenges with implementing play-based learning

have been reported, including a lack of training (Howard, 2010), pressure to ensure children

attain high academic standards (Leggett & Ford, 2013), large teacher-child ratios (Lynch, 2014),

and a lack of time and space to support play (Hegde & Cassidy, 2009). Demands for students to

achieve higher academic learning outcomes have not been matched with pedagogical support to

help teachers incorporate these goals into the context of kindergarten education (Fleer, 2010). As

a result, both conceptual and practical challenges have been uncovered in the shift towards

following a mandated play-based learning framework. These challenges are concerning in light

of the important early learning outcomes outlined to be targeted through play in the kindergarten

years, including the development of key literacy and pre-literacy skills.

Early Literacy

The learning that occurs during kindergarten has a significant impact on later academic

achievement (Duncan et al., 2007; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). It marks an

important academic period that starts to bridge emergent literacy, which includes phonological

processing (Wagner and Torgesen, 1987) and vocabulary skills (Biemiller, 2003), to formal

academic skills such as decoding (Armbruster, Lehr, Osborn, Adler, & Noonis, 2010; Solari et


5

al., 2014). In 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) identified several core literacy skills as

essential for the acquisition of reading ability including alphabetics, fluency, and text

comprehension (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). The category of alphabetics includes

both phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. Phonemic awareness is the understanding

that language is a composition of constituent parts that can be broken down and manipulated

(NRP, 2000), and is a strong early predictor of later reading ability (Stahl and Murray, 1994).

Alphabet knowledge involves learning the names and sounds associated with different letters.

Fluency is generally regarded as the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and expression (Fuchs,

Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). Students learn to develop reading fluency through acquiring

decoding skills that support independent reading (Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006) and

developing automaticity in their word reading ability (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005). Finally,

comprehension involves the dual processes of vocabulary growth and narrative reasoning (NRP,

2000). Vocabulary growth in particular has been strongly associated with reading achievement

(Biemiller, 2003). All of these skills have been shown to emerge through everyday activities and

interactions (Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006), but often also require more direct

instruction, particularly for students with weaker literacy ability (Botts, Losardo, Tillery, &

Werts, 2012). Within play-based classrooms, navigating the balance between scaffolding

academic knowledge and skills in child-directed contexts (i.e., play) and teacher-directed

instruction often produces tensions about how to best foster literacy skills (Saracho, 2012). It is

not yet well known how these key literacy behaviours are being practiced within different

educative contexts in play-based kindergarten classrooms.

Classroom Learning Contexts


6

Direct instruction. Children’s learning of curricular content can occur in several distinct

classroom contexts, the prevalence of which is often based on the pedagogical philosophy of the

educator and the legislative jurisdiction of the school board (Beatty, 2011; Stipek and Byler,

1997; Synodi, 2010). One of the most universal approaches to pedagogy in kindergarten is the

direct instruction of academic content, which is characterized by lessons that are both highly

structured and teacher-directed. Direct instruction is often considered to be a didactic

instructional mode in which teachers explicitly transmit academic content at a pace that they

themselves set, typically followed by guided or independent work by students (Drake, Kolohon,

& Reid, 2014; Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009). Examples of direct instruction in kindergarten

are whole class lessons (such as circle time) and small group lessons, in which the teacher

introduces content and coordinates the activity. It has been demonstrated to be an effective

teaching pedagogy for literacy particularly for children with academic difficulties or lower SES

(Beck and McKeown, 2007; Gersten, Darch, & Gleason, 1988). While direct instruction is

prevalent in North American kindergarten classrooms (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016),

criticisms about the developmental appropriateness of highly structured kindergarten programs

have led some educators and policy-makers towards more child-centered pedagogies, such as

play-based learning. This movement towards play-based learning is supported by research into

the efficacy of play as a valid learning context for curricular content (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, &

Golinkoff, 2013).

Free play. Unlike direct instruction, a play-based pedagogy provides more opportunities

for children to lead their own learning through play. This context encourages learning through

playful exploration, experimentation, and peer interaction (Van Oers and Duijkers, 2013). There

is wide acknowledgement that free play, or play that is freely chosen and child-directed (e.g.,


7

Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Newcombe, & Golinkoff, 2013), can be an effective means of fostering a

range of developmental competencies such as personal skills, self-regulation (Elias and Berk,

2002), and social skills (Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson, 2006), as well as abilities that

support academic learning, such as oral language development (Saracho, 2012). When free play

is used as a classroom learning context, it allows students to independently select and explore

activities that can promote learning, and engage with curricular content at their own pace (Walsh

et al., 2006). Early learning programs and curricula that emphasize play as a foundation for

learning have demonstrated promising outcomes in multiple domains (e.g. Blair and Raver,

2015), including language and literacy development (Stagnitti, Bailey, Stevenson, Reynolds, &

Kidd, 2015). In contrast to classroom environments that rely heavily on teacher directed literacy

instruction, there is support for the assertion that these skills can be taught effectively through

play scenarios (Weisberg et al., 2013). Van Oers and Duijkers’ (2013) study compared classroom

environments in which teachers engaged in direct instruction for literacy to classrooms in which

teachers relied on setting up play environments for students that contained material that

promoted the integration of targeted skills. The findings demonstrated that this approach resulted

in greater acquisition of new words than classrooms with direct instruction (Van Oers and

Duijkers, 2013). Furthermore, the use of play-based settings has been found to strengthen

children’s literacy development by offering the opportunity for children to engage and share

knowledge amongst peers (Vukelich, 1993), thus effectively increasing the number of available

sources of information for each student within the classroom.

Guided play. When the educator leads the learning, it is often based on specific pre-

determined curricular learning goals. However, teachers can also integrate purposeful and

directed learning within children’s play activities by taking an active role in the play, an


8

instructional strategy often referred to as guided play (Weisberg et al., 2013). During guided

play, the educator can engage in a variety of practices to embed or scaffold academic learning

within children’s play activities such as providing comments or questions, becoming an active

co-player, or leading games and activities that address curricular content in a playful manner

(Fisher et al., 2013; Jones & Reynolds, 2011). While free play is emphasized as a primarily

child-directed endeavour, guided play emphasizes the importance of active educator involvement

in order to embed or extend academic content within children’s play activities. Guided play can

be an effective strategy for fostering literacy in young children. For example, a study by Han et

al. (2010) examining the efficacy of a targeted vocabulary instructional protocol found that

kindergarten-aged children engaged in cooperative play with an adult demonstrated enhanced

vocabulary learning over those who only received direct instruction. The authors attributed these

gains to the ability of the playful context to motivate children to engage with the academic

content (Han et al., 2010). However, the authors also acknowledged that more research into how

guided play supports learning in naturalistic classrooms is required to better understand the

processes of student learning in kindergarten.

Teacher Perspectives

Several factors that have been found to influence the implementation of play-based

learning stem from teachers’ reported perspectives and challenges with integrating play and

learning in the classroom (e.g., Pyle & Danniels, 2017). In a recent scoping review of research

addressing play-based learning in kindergarten (Pyle, DeLuca, & Danniels, 2017), studies that

examined teacher perspectives and practices while implementing play-based learning curricula

revealed some common themes, including reported difficulties with integrating the concepts of

play and learning (e.g., Vong, 2012), endorsing the concept of learning through play but


9

primarily implementing direct instruction (e.g., Hegde & Cassidy, 2009), and citing practical

barriers to the implementation of play-based learning strategies (e.g., Hu, Fuentes, Wang, & Ye,

2014). Teachers who have reported challenges with integrating the often dichotomously viewed

concepts of play and learning have been found to focus primarily on implementing direct

instruction and free play in their classrooms, while teachers who endorsed the view that literacy

learning can be accomplished through play have been found to implement more guided play

alongside free play and direct instruction (Pyle, Prioletta, & Poliszczuk, 2017). Teachers’

understandings of the relationship between play and literacy learning was thus found to be

related to their subsequent implementation of play-based pedagogy. However, other studies have

found that while educators in several countries endorsed children’s ability to learn through play,

they continued to primarily utilize methods of direct instruction to address academic learning

(e.g., Kim, 2004; Pui-Wah & Stimpson, 2004). Some potential reasons for this discrepancy put

forth by researchers included teachers’ underlying beliefs regarding the importance of direct

instruction, pressure to meet accountability requirements, past teacher training experiences,

following routine practices, or social desirability bias towards endorsing play as pedagogy (Foote

et al., 2004; Hedge & Cassidy, 2009). Lastly, teachers have reported practical challenges in

implementing play-based pedagogy, such as a lack of professional development or training in

play and pressure from parents and/or administration to achieve prescribed academic outcomes

(Howard, 2010; Leggett & Ford, 2013). These practical challenges were reported by teachers as

influencing the pedagogical decision to implement more direct instruction and resulted in fewer

opportunities for play-based learning.

Objective


10

While these three early learning contexts (direct instruction, guided play, and free play)

have been examined separately with each demonstrating a capacity for fostering literacy learning

(Beck & McKeown, 2007; Han et al., 2010; Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013), it is not yet clear how

each context uniquely contributes to the practice of literacy skills in play-based kindergarten

classrooms. The purpose of the current study was to examine teacher perspectives on literacy

development and play-based learning, and examine the resulting integration of key early literacy

behaviours within direct instruction, guided play, and free play contexts in kindergarten

classrooms. This examination of both teacher perspectives and observed literacy practices will

illuminate factors influencing teachers’ pedagogical decisions for early literacy learning in play-

based kindergarten.

Method

Study Context

Ethical approval was granted by the University and two school district ethical review

committees. One of the school districts was located in a suburban area, and the other in an urban

area. Consent was provided by twelve kindergarten teachers to collect data in their classrooms in

a metropolitan district in Ontario, Canada. While schools were embedded within two distinct

school districts, every teacher used the same provincially mandated kindergarten program as a

basis for instruction. This setting was a natural context for this research as changes to the

kindergarten curriculum initiated in 2010 created a program based on principles of play-based

learning (OME, 2010). The updated program was intended to give children the opportunity to

experience a full day of enriching, play-based learning in a setting that encourages curiosity and

promotes learning in core academic areas (OME, 2016). Using a pedagogical paradigm of

developmentally appropriate practice at its core, the curriculum positions children’s play as an


11

essential context for learning and development (OME, 2010), and accordingly, the mandate of

the ministry requires educators to teach academic skills through play, under the provision of

play-based learning (OME, 2016). Based on this premise, all academic strands, including

language and literacy, are taught and assessed through the paradigm of children’s play.

Participants and Data Sources

Twelve kindergarten teachers with between 3 and 26 years of experience (M = 11.75

years) participated in the study. Half reported receiving some type of training on the role of play

in the kindergarten classroom: four teachers reported participating in one or more workshops on

play-based learning, and two independently sought out and completed online courses on the

subject of play. Five teachers stated that they had received no prior training in play, and one did

not share any information about prior professional development about play-based learning.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participating teacher. These

interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview questions focused on the

teachers’ perspectives regarding the role of play in children’s learning (i.e., What aspects of

student learning are enhanced by engaging in play?), the teacher’s role in play (i.e., How do you

support student learning during play?), and the relationship between play and literacy learning

(i.e., What is the role of play in developing literacy skills?).

Active parental consent and student assent to participate in the research were received

from a total of 175 students across the twelve classrooms. A minimum of 10 hours of

observational data within each participating classroom were collected, including video recorded

observations of periods of literacy-focused teacher-directed instruction, children’s self-directed

play, and periods where teachers participated in children’s play. The definition of play utilized

by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2010) was followed, whereby play was defined as “child-


12

initiated free play and more structured play-based learning opportunities” (p. 13). Teacher-

directed activities included all contexts where the educator took the lead in transmitting

academic content related to literacy, and consisted of direct whole class, small group, and

individual student instruction. A total of 1755.75 minutes of recorded footage was coded across

all 12 classrooms.

Data Analysis and Reporting

Teacher interviews were coded line-by-line using an inductive method of analysis

(Patton, 2002). Codes were developed from the data and teacher codes were compared across

classes using a method of constant comparison. These codes were then organized into common

themes that emerged across several teachers, including perspectives on the relationship between

play and literacy development and the challenges associated with integrating literacy learning in

play.

Classroom videos were categorized by learning context: teacher-directed instruction, play

with no adult involvement (free play), or play that included teacher involvement (guided play).

Upon completion of the categorization, videos within each category were analyzed using a

coding frame consisting of five literacy behaviours (Table 1). Within the coding frame, three

literacy skills, fluency, comprehension, and alphabetics, were based on recommendations from

the NRP’s report (2000). While not included in the NRP report, the skill of writing was also

included in the analysis as writing skills during kindergarten are predictive of general literacy

achievement (Aram and Biron, 2004; Shatil, Share, & Levin, 2000). A fifth skill representing the

students’ understanding of text conventions was also added owing to its role in supporting

emergent literacy through print awareness (i.e., book handling skills) (Justice and Pullen, 2003).


13

All five of these literacy behaviours are present within the Ontario kindergarten curricular

document (OME, 2016).

Due to the variable nature of play and instructional episodes, video recordings were not a

standardized length. An interval coding method was thus selected to analyze the amount of time

spent within each of the literacy skills. Each video was coded in 15-second intervals. Within

each 15-second interval only the most prevalent literacy behaviour was coded. It is important to

note that fluency and comprehension behaviours were generally absent in play-based contexts,

which can be partially attributed to the difficulty of coding those behaviours. Student

engagement with a text (i.e., looking at a page in a book) could not be reliably coded as

independent reading without clear verbal data to corroborate whether they were actually

demonstrating fluency or narrative comprehension, thus nearly all footage of student engagement

with books was coded as a text convention behaviour. To assess the reliability of the coding, a

second independent rater coded 20% of the videos. The interrater reliability as measured by the

intraclass correlation coefficient was acceptable at .74.

Results

All 12 teachers identified challenges with respect to integrating the teaching of prescribed

literacy standards within the play-based learning framework. Specifically, three distinct issues

were repeatedly identified in the teacher interviews: 1) direct instruction plays a key role in

literacy learning; 2) play is less structured and difficult to plan; and 3) feelings of uncertainty

regarding how to get involved in children’s play to promote literacy learning. Each of these

themes was evidenced within the observational data. Specifically, the frequency of observed

literacy behaviours across each classroom context provided support for the challenges that were

described by the teachers.


14

Challenge #1: Direct instruction plays a key role in literacy learning

Teacher perspectives. Although play was consistently viewed by teachers as fulfilling

an important role in certain areas of child development, such as in the development of social

skills and self-regulation abilities, 50% of these teachers felt that direct instruction fulfilled a key

instructional component for promoting early literacy learning. In particular, time dedicated to

small group instruction was highlighted as providing a critical opportunity to target early reading

skills before children could benefit from less structured activities, like play:

I wish I had more time for that explicit instruction around reading behaviours

because I do think that they do pick it up through the activities you're doing

in the room and I love that that can happen in an authentic way but they need

the tools first to do that. And I think those tools are best taught in those small

group environments. (Teacher 4)

Small group instruction was believed to be the context in which the majority of literacy learning

took place: “That’s where I find most of the direct learning happens. When you sit with like three

or four of them and really get into stuff” (Teacher 7). Playtime was deemed important, but did

not serve the same crucial role as small group instruction: “The play is important, but for me,

having the small guided groups are key” (Teacher 2). These teachers emphasized the key role of

direct instruction periods for early literacy learning.

Implementation. Half of the teachers reported direct instruction as a valuable context for

addressing the learning of literacy skills and it was also the most prevalent classroom context

observed, accounting for 4987 (71%) of all intervals. This included periods of both large and

small group instruction directed by teachers. Furthermore, the mean for total literacy behaviours

observed was highest in the context of direct instruction (M = .54, SD = .15), observed


15

approximately 54% of the time in this context, when compared to guided play and free play.

Teachers expressed the viewpoint that focused teaching, particularly in small group settings,

served as an essential component of literacy instruction, and this was reflected in the higher rates

of literacy behaviours present in this context compared to guided play and free play. While

teachers did not specifically discuss the teaching of alphabetics in this context, it was the literacy

behaviour observed most often (M = .24, SD = .16), followed by fluency (M = .11, SD = .07).

The expressed perspective that direct instruction played an essential role in students’

learning may have been influenced by structural factors currently in place in kindergarten in

Ontario. For example, 67% of these teachers discussed one or more structural factors impacting

pedagogical decisions, such as experiencing pressure to ensure their students met the high

academic standards contained within the current curriculum: “The board expects the SKs [Senior

Kindergarten students – 5 year olds] to be reading at a particular level, there’s a lot of pressure,

and they’ve now put that level up higher…it’s hard with that pressure coming down from the

board, especially now with this new play-based program” (Teacher 1). High accountability

standards throughout the elementary years have resulted in teachers feeling “that top down stress

about going into grade one” (Teacher 7). The kindergarten curriculum presented a challenge for

these teachers in terms of its size: “I feel that the curriculum is huge. I don’t know how we’re

supposed to do it” (Teacher 9). The teachers felt pressure to ensure that they addressed all of the

academic standards present in the curriculum, which may have impacted the choice to focus

predominantly on direct instruction in the classroom.

Challenge #2: Play is less structured and difficult to plan

Teacher perspectives. Following from the importance of dedicating time to teacher-

directed instruction, play was viewed as containing far less structure from adults and requiring


16

more flexibility in planning than direct instruction, which was an expressed source of difficulty

for 50% of these teachers when implementing a play-based curriculum. In the Ontario

kindergarten program teachers are mandated to provide time for students to engage in self-

directed free play, while at the same time to ensure that children meet curricular benchmarks. In

order to fulfill both of these mandates, the curriculum advises that teachers embed academic

content within children’s play; however, the open-ended nature of play resulted in confusion. “I

would like it more structured. I’m used to the old way I taught kindergarten, when I first started

teaching, there was more structure in it. Now it’s just open-ended. I’m so confused sometimes on

what to do” (Teacher 11). Furthermore, not only was it difficult to infuse academic learning

within free play, but several teachers described the challenge of sharing control with the children.

Dedicating time to child-directed play activities meant that teachers must give up control and

maintain a flexible position in the classroom, resulting in teachers not always being able to

follow a desired schedule. “We have to kind of take into account it’s the children’s ideas that are

driving it, so, I don’t know, I feel like I’m not really in control” (Teacher 1). Half of these

teachers conveyed the challenges inherent in following the children’s lead as it was less

structured by adults, resulting in teachers experiencing some confusion and a perceived lack of

control over what can be done to enhance children’s academic learning within their free play

activities.

Implementation. Teachers’ reported challenges concerning the unstructured nature of

play may have stemmed from the lack of literacy behaviours that emerged within children’s own

free play, as literacy behaviours were observed the least often within this context. Children’s

free-play contexts were observed within 1664 (23.7%) of intervals. Children in these classrooms

spent on average 28% of their time engaged in literacy behaviours within free play (M = .28, SD


17

= .14), compared with approximately 54% of the time within direct instruction. With respect to

the literacy behaviours that did occur, writing (M = .12, SD = .10) and text conventions (M =

.11, SD = .06), were observed the most often, which did not align with the strong focus on

alphabetics observed during teacher-directed instruction. Of the means that were reliably

calculated, alphabetics was observed the least often (M = .05, SD = .05), and one third of the

classrooms had no alphabetics-integration during free play. The previous observation that

alphabetics was the most frequently occurring literacy behaviour in teacher-directed instruction

suggests that alphabetics were generally strongly promoted by teachers, but scarcely present

during free play; and this was reflected in the teachers’ viewpoint that free play posed challenges

as a context for literacy learning.

Challenge #3: Teachers are uncertain about how to implement guided play

Teacher perspectives. 67% of the participating teachers expressed some uncertainty

when discussing the implementation of guided play in their classrooms. Although they cited

difficulties with following the children’s lead in play to promote learning, they expressed some

confusion regarding how to find a middle ground between teacher-led direct instruction and

child-led free play: “I’m really interested in learning about the study and more about play…and

literacy and language because it always feels like it’s either instruction or play but why can’t

there be somewhere kind of in the middle?” (Teacher 3). Teachers expressed some confusion

regarding the optimal role of the adult during times of play and what can be done in the moment

to support academic learning: “What do you do? What’s your next step? What do you say, how

do you say it back? You know talking them through it. And it’s hard” (Teacher 10). These

teachers shared many unanswered questions regarding how to effectively implement guided play.


18

Implementation. The majority of these teachers expressed feelings of uncertainty and

confusion with respect to how to effectively implement guided play in the classroom, and this

was reflected in the low rates of teacher involvement observed in times of play, numbering only

372 of the total intervals (5.3% of the time). However, within this context, literacy behaviours

were observed on average 40% of the time (M = .40, SD = .26) across the classrooms, an

increase from an average of 28% of the time within free play. The low incidence of guided play

observed and the teachers’ expressed lack of clarity regarding how to implement guided play

demonstrate that these teachers had not yet wholly integrated guided play strategies into their

teaching pedagogies.

Although guided play was the context observed the least often, when teachers did become

involved in children’s play, there was an increase in observed literacy behaviours over free play

alone. It was found that the context of guided play contained the greatest amount of variability in

literacy behaviours among the three contexts, as represented by the high standard deviations in

each observed literacy behaviour in that context; however, key literacy behaviours such as

alphabetics were observed within times of guided play at similar rates as in direct instruction

(alphabetics in guided play: M = .16, SD = .16). This is notable as it demonstrated that taken as

an instructional context, guided play can provide similar levels of exposure to core literacy

domains, though because it was delivered in the activity of play, students may have been more

motivated to engage with that content (Bulunuz, 2013; Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995).

The observed rates of literacy behaviours suggest that guided play could be a valid context for

promoting literacy behaviours, however, there was little consistency in how this was performed.

Discussion


19

Three core themes emerged through exploring teacher perspectives about the integration

of literacy education within a play-based learning pedagogy and observing how this integration

is enacted within the classroom. Each of these themes comprised a challenge that was inherent

for implementing a play-based learning curriculum. Namely, the participants in this research

identified apprehensions about the efficacy of play as a context for literacy learning, the

difficulties of planning free play experiences, and confusion about their roles within play

activities. These themes were consistent across the classrooms, and reflected the challenges that

teachers experienced when planning a play-based learning program that was both

developmentally appropriate as well as accountable for student literacy achievement.

Free Play

The curriculum mandates that children be provided opportunities to engage in self-

initiated free play (OME, 2010). Many of the teachers in this study did not believe that free play

alone would suffice for their students’ literacy acquisition, and indeed, most classrooms

demonstrated few literacy behaviours during free play. This apprehension was reflected in the

frequency with which they scheduled direct instruction over other instructional contexts. This is

consistent with previous research demonstrating that teachers were confident about the role of

play for developmental gains, but more sceptical when it came to academic learning (Pui-Wah,

2008). However, teacher perceptions about the value of play for literacy may have also

influenced the frequency of children’s literacy behaviours during free play. For example,

teachers who believed that play has limited value for literacy learning may be less likely to plan

play experiences that contain artefacts of literacy, such as writing tools and books (Pyle et al.,

2017), thereby reducing student opportunities to engage with those materials within play.


20

Teacher beliefs about the lack of efficacy of play for academic learning might be further

reinforced by the absence of academic integration that was observed in several of this study’s

classrooms. Specifically, if teachers do not witness children demonstrating academic learning

during play, as was observed in several classrooms, then the need to implement free play might

be perceived as a frustrating necessity. Moreover, the absence of particular literacy behaviours,

such as alphabetics, may have prompted teachers to devote more time to covering them within

direct instruction. Although we have seen that literacy learning can develop in play experiences

(Van Oers & Duijkers, 2014), we also have evidence that teacher involvement is important.

Guided Play

Teachers who extend literacy content into guided instruction can deepen children’s learning

(Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli Jr., & Kapp, 2013). Moreover, direct instruction of literacy in

kindergarten does not ensure that students will meet curriculum targets (Xue & Meisels, 2001),

so increasing opportunities for literacy engagement through multiple means may improve

children’s literacy skills (Van Oers & Duijkers, 2014). One important way that teachers can

promote learning within play is by directly scaffolding academics while taking on an active role

in play (Jones & Reynolds, 2015). In this study, the challenge of planning play experiences that

provide opportunities for academic learning was compounded by teachers’ reported feelings of

uncertainty regarding how to embed themselves within play to scaffold the learning. This

difficulty may be rooted in the relatively novel move towards play-based learning within

elementary education. While children’s play has been the focus of developmental research for

decades, the integration of play as a paradigm for academic learning is a more recent shift

(Bodrova, 2009; Cheng & Johnson, 2009). The relative novelty of this paradigm for learning

means that teachers may not have had opportunities during their pre-service training and in-


21

service professional development to develop strategies for implementing a play-based learning

program. This is consistent with previous research that identified implementation challenges

during the initial stages of delivering play-based programs (e.g., Martlew, Steven, & Ellis, 2011).

While the curriculum that was in place at the time of the study instructed teachers to create

opportunities for both teacher and child-initiated activities, it was less clear about the ways that

they could actively participate within the play to encourage the learning of curricular content

(OME, 2010). However, in those moments in which teachers did become involved in play, the

literacy behaviours increased. While guided play did not account for much of the overall literacy

behaviour (only 5.3% of the total intervals were from that context), the rate of alphabetics,

writing, and text convention content within that context was comparable to what was observed

during direct instruction. Our data echoed the findings of previous research (e.g. Roskos and

Christie, 2001) concerning the essential role of adult presence for play-literacy integration by

demonstrating that the presence of the educator provided a context in which he or she could

scaffold a skill or concept into the play. This is particularly important for literacy components

such as fluency and alphabetics, which have been more frequently observed through adult

instruction or intervention (Botts et al., 2012). These findings point to the need for additional

research and training with respect to classroom-based guided play strategies that can effectively

promote literacy learning in play-based kindergarten classrooms.

Balanced Approach

Free play did provide the opportunity for some literacy skill development for students as they

integrated writing and text conventions with some regularity. However, students’ primary focus

during free play is not the development of their own literacy skills and while the opportunity to

use these skills in a contextually relevant manner is useful and should not be overlooked, this


22

context in and of itself is not sufficient for the comprehensive development of literacy skills.

That being said, previous empirical findings of the benefits of free play to oral language

development, which is a foundational literacy skill, enforce the importance of maintaining this

context in kindergarten classrooms (Saracho, 2012).

Alternatively, direct instruction provided the opportunity for students to develop the core

literacy skills of alphabetics and fluency. These two skills are essential and are strong predictors

of later reading ability (Stahl & Murray, 1994). With the opportunity to develop these essential

literacy skills and the knowledge that direct instruction is valuable for students with weaker

literacy skills and lower SES (Beck and McKeown, 2007), this instructional context provides a

valuable learning opportunity for students. However, this finding is problematized by empirical

findings demonstrating that direct instruction is not as effective as play-based contexts for

encouraging the development of targeted skills (e.g., Han et al., 2010).

Guided play provides a context where the provision of teacher direction and extension in

play-based contexts provides the opportunity to integrate free play and direct instruction.

Previous research has expounded the benefits of this approach to the development of literacy

skills (Han et al., 2010). However, our findings demonstrate that teachers are struggling to

integrate this pedagogical approach in kindergarten classrooms as they are lacking clarity

concerning their role in their students’ play, including how and when to get involved.

Considering the challenges and benefits inherent in each of these pedagogical contexts,

our findings demonstrate the need to create a balanced pedagogical approach that includes

various modes of instruction and learning, including free play, direct instruction, and guided

play. The teachers in the current study conveyed the desire to implement different types of play

as well as direct instruction in the classroom to strive for a pragmatic and balanced approach to


23

early literacy learning. These findings are consistent with international studies from the United

States, Singapore, and Israel that have examined the beliefs of kindergarten teachers and found

that these educators primarily endorsed an eclectic or balanced approach to literacy learning,

rather than one single method or teaching strategy (Hindman & Wasik, 2008; Lim & Torr, 2007;

Sverdlov, Aram & Levin, 2014). One difficulty with developing a balanced instructional

approach for a play-based curriculum is that the research on guided play and direct instruction

tends to be either separate, or comparative of the two (i.e. Botts et al., 2014). More studies that

examine the integrated use of both guided play and direct instruction would support our

understanding of their respective roles for helping young children to learn. In addition, the

research concerning free play primarily considers its role in the development of more personal

and social skills than academic learning, and studies that address the development of academic

skills, such as literacy skills, in the context of free play are uncommon. Thus, the need to

examine the implementation of various forms of play in kindergarten classrooms, and the role

these play forms have in student learning is essential to the successful shift from strictly

academic kindergarten programs to programs that emphasize academic learning through

developmentally appropriate practices such as play-based learning.


24

References

Ankrum, JW, Genest, MT and Belcastro, EG (2014) The power of verbal scaffolding:

“Showing” beginning readers how to use reading strategies. Early Childhood Education

Journal 42(1): 39–47.

Aram, D and Biron, S (2004) Joint storybook reading and joint writing interventions among low

SES preschoolers: Differential contributions to early literacy. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly 19(4): 588–610.

Armbruster, BB, Lehr, F, Osborn, J, Adler, CR and Noonis, LT (2003) Put reading first: The

research building blocks of reading instruction: Kindergarten through grade 3 (3rd ed.).

Washington: National Institute for Literacy.

Bassok, D, Latham, S and Rorem, A (2016) Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open

1(4): 1–31.

Baker, F. S. (2014a) Teachers’ views on play-based practice in Abu Dhabi kindergartens,

International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(3), 271–286.

Beatty, B (2011) The dilemma of scripted instruction: Comparing teacher autonomy, fidelity,

and resistance in the Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, direct instruction, and success

for all. Teachers College Record 113(3): 395–430.

Beck, IL and McKeown, MG (2007) Increasing young low income children’s oral vocabulary

repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal 107(3):

251–271.

Biemiller, A (2003) Vocabulary: Needed if more children are to read well. Reading Psychology

24(3-4): 323–335.

Binder, M. (2014) The storied lives children play: Multimodal approaches using storytelling,


25

Canadian Children, 39(2), 11–20.

Blair, C and Raver, CC (2015) School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental

psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology 66(1): 711–731.

Botts, DC, Losardo, AS, Tillery, CY and Werts, MG (2012) A comparison of activity-based

intervention and embedded direct instruction when teaching emergent literacy skills. The

Journal of Special Education 48(2): 120–134.

Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: does integrated play and

science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research

Journal, 21(2), 226-249.

Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A. & Copley, J. (2008) The

development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities,

Cognition & Instruction, 26(3), 269–309.

Connor, CM, Morrison, FJ and Slominski, L (2006) Preschool instruction and children's

emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(4), 665–689.

De La Riva, S. & Ryan, T. G. (2015) Effect of self-regulating behaviour on young children’s

academic success, International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 7(1), 69–

96.�

Drake, SM, Kolohon, W and Reid, JL (2014) Interweaving curriculum and classroom

assessment: Engaging the 21st century learner. Canada: Oxford University Press.

Duncan, GJ, Dowsett, CJ, Claessens, A, Magnuson, K, Huston, AC, Klebanov, P, . . . Japel, C

(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology 43(6):

1428–1446.

Elias, CL and Berk, LE (2002) Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for


26

sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17(2): 216–238.

Fisher, KR, Hirsh-Pasek, K, Newcombe, N and Golinkoff, RM (2013) Taking shape: Supporting

preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child

Development 8(4): 1872–1878.

Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development. Cultural-historical concepts in play. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Foote, L., Smith, J. & Ellis, F. (2004) The impact of teachers’ beliefs on the literacy experiences

of young children: A New Zealand perspective, Early Years: Journal of International

Research & Development, 24(2), 135–147.�

Fuchs, LS, Fuchs, D, Hosp, MK and Jenkins, JR (2001) Oral reading fluency as an indicator of

reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of

Reading 5(3): 239–256.

Gersten, R, Darch, C and Gleason, M (1988) Effectiveness of a direct instruction academic

kindergarten for low-income students. The Elementary School Journal 89(2): 227–240.

Han, M, Moore, N, Vukelich, C and Buell, M (2010). Does play make a difference? How play

intervention affects the vocabulary learning of at-risk preschoolers. American Journal of

Play 3(1): 82–105.

Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and

nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.

Hegde, A. V. & Cassidy, D. J. (2009) Kindergarten teachers’ perspectives on developmentally

appropriate practices (DAP): A study conducted in Mumbai (India), Journal of Research

in Childhood Education, 23(3), 367–381.�


27

Hindman, A. H., & Wasik, B. A. (2008). Head start teachers’ beliefs about language and literacy

instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 479-492.

Howard, J. (2010) Early years practitioners’ perceptions of play: An exploration of theoretical

understanding, planning and involvement, confidence and barriers to practice,

Educational & Child Psychology, 27(4), 91–102.

Hudson, RF, Lane, HB and Pullen, PC (2005) Reading fluency assessment and instruction:

What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher 58(8): 702–714.

Hu, B. H., Fuentes, S. Q., Wang, C. Y. & Ye, F. (2014) A case study of the implementation of

Chinese kindergarten mathematics curriculum, International Journal of Science &

Mathematics Education, 12(1), 193–217.�

Jones, E and Reynolds, G (2011) The Play's the Thing: Teachers' Roles in Children's Play (2nd

ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Justice, LM and Pullen, PC (2003) Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy

skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

23(3): 99–113.

Kim, M. (2004) Teachers’ philosophical orientation and practices: A study of novice preschool

teachers in South Korea, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(3), 276–292.�

Leggett, N. & Ford, M. (2013) A fine balance: Understanding the roles educators and children

play as intentional teachers and intentional learners within the Early Years Learning

Framework, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(4), 42–50.�

Lim, C., & Torr, J. (2007). Singaporean early childhood teachers' beliefs about literacy

development in a multilingual context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4),

409-434.

Lynch, M. (2014) Ontario kindergarten teachers’ social media discussion about full day


28

kindergarten, McGill Journal of Education, 49(2), 329–347.

Manning, J. P. (2005). Rediscovering Froebel: A call to re-examine his life & gifts. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 371-376.

McClelland, MM, Acock, AC and Morrison, FJ (2006) The impact of kindergarten learning-

related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly 21(4): 471–490.

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.

College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.

National Reading Panel (2000) Summary Report. Bethesda: National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2011). The full-day early learning—kindergarten program.

Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindergarten

_english_june3.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education (2016). The Kindergarten Program 2016.

Retrieved from https://files.ontario.ca/books/edu_the_kindergarten_program_english_

aoda_web_july21.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London, UK: Sage.�

Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Johansson, E. (2006). Play and learning—Inseparable dimensions in

preschool practice. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 47–65.�

Presser, A. L., Clements, M., Ginsburg, H. & Ertle, B. (2015) Big math for little kids: The

effectiveness of a preschool and kindergarten mathematics curriculum, Early Education

& Development, 26(3), 399–426.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., ... &

Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of


29

Reading, 5(1), 35-58.

Pui-Wah, D. C. (2008) Meta-learning ability—a crucial component for the professional

development of teachers in a changing context, Teacher Development, 12(1), 85–95

Pui-Wah, D. C. & Stimpson, P. (2004) Articulating contrasts in kindergarten teachers’ implicit

knowledge on play-based learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 41(4–

5), 339– 352.

Pyle, A. & Bigelow, A. (2015) Play in kindergarten: An interview and observational study in

three Canadian classrooms, Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(5), 385–393.

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.

Pyle, A., DeLuca, C., & Danniels, E. (2017). A scoping review of research on play-based

pedagogies in kindergarten education. Review of Education. DOI: 10.1002/rev3.3097

Pyle, A., Prioletta, J., & Poliszczuk, D. (2017). The Play-Literacy Interface in Full-day

Kindergarten Classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0852-z

Roskos, KA and Christie, JF (2013) Gaining ground in understanding the play-literacy

relationship. American Journal of Play 6(1): 82–97.

Rupley, WH, Blair, TR and Nichols, WD (2009) Effective reading instruction for struggling

readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly 25(2-3): 125–

138.

Saracho, ON (2012) An Integrated Play-Based Curriculum for Young Children. New York:

Routledge.


30

Sharp, A. C., Escalante, D. L. & Anderson, G. T. (2012) Literacy instruction in kindergarten:

Using the power of dramatic play, California English, 18(2), 16–18.

Shatil, E, Share, DL and Levin, I (2000) On the contribution of kindergarten writing to grade 1

literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics 21(1): 1–21.

Solari, EJ, Aceves, TC, Higareda, I, Richards-Tutor, C, Filippini, AL, Gerber, MM and

Leafstedt, J (2014) Longitudinal prediction of 1st and 2nd grade English oral reading

fluency in English language learners: Which early reading and language skills are better

predictors? Psychology in the Schools 51(2): 126–142.

Stagnitti, K, Bailey, A, Stevenson, EH, Reynolds, E and Kidd, E (2015) An investigation

into the effect of play-based instruction on the development of play skills and oral

language: A 6-month longitudinal study. Journal of Early Childhood Research 5: 1–18.

Stahl, SA and Murray, BA (1994) Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early

reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 86(2): 221–234.

Stipek, DJ and Byler, P (1997) Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they

preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12(3): 305–325.

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.

Sverdlov, A., Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2014). Kindergarten teachers' literacy beliefs and self-

reported practices: On the heels of a new national literacy curriculum. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 39, 44-55.

Synodi, E. (2010) Play in the kindergarten: The case of Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and

Japan, International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3), 185–200.


31

Vadasy, PF, Sanders, EA and Peyton, JA (2006) Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten

students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator

implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(3): 508–528.

Van Oers, B and Duijkers, D (2013) Teaching in a play-based curriculum: Theory, practice and

evidence of developmental education for young children. Journal of Curriculum Studies

45(4): 511–534.

Vong, K. (2012) Play—a multi-modal manifestation in kindergarten education in China, Early

Years, 32(1), 35–48.�

Vukelich, C (1993) Play: A context for exploring the functions, features, and meaning of writing

with peers. Language Arts 70: 386–392.

Wagner, RK and Torgesen, JK (1987) The nature of phonological processing and its causal role

in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin 101(2): 192–212.

Walsh, G., Sproule, L., McGuinness, C., Trew, K., Rafferty, H. & Sheehy, N. (2006) An

appropriate curriculum for 4–5 year old children in Northern Ireland: Comparing play

based and formal approaches, Early Years, 26(2), 201–221.

Weisberg, DS, Hirsh-Pasek, K and Golinkoff, RM (2013) Guided play: Where curricular goals

meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education 7(2): 104–112.


32

Table 1 Coding Frame of Literacy Behaviours Literacy Behaviour Indicators Fluency • Learning/teaching sight/high

frequency words (no deconstruction)

• Playing with/manipulating sight/high frequency words

• Modeling reading orally • Automatic decoding of text/fluent

reading

Comprehension • Vocabulary instruction • Inferencing/discussing meaning of a

text • Checking understanding of a text

Alphabetics • Phonemic awareness

games/instruction/discussion/play • Phonics games/instruction/play • Letter knowledge games/instruction

play • Spelling associated reading -

phonetic reading

Writing • Instruction/games/play about writing processes

• Modeling writing • Writing during play/activity

Text Conventions • Playing with books/text

• Modeling text features/reading processes

• Handling books/text

the challenges of promoting literacy within a play …...literacy integration within a play-based...

Documents