Perspectives on Play

Contributing Author: Hannah Simmons

This article was written as part of the team’s preparation for the 2023 Right to Play Conference hosted by the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, University of Oxford. 

Introduction

Around the world, play is considered a cornerstone of childhood. When we think of play, we often imagine scenes of joyous squeals, unbound imagination, and resourceful creativity. But although play has a universal presence in childhood, researchers have historically struggled to agree on what play actually is (e.g., Burghardt, 2005; Fagen, 1981; Marin & Caro, 1985). In this blog, we will explore perspectives on play, how play varies between cultures, and how different types of play can support children’s development and learning.

Perspectives on play

Developmental theorists present play as a universal childhood phenomenon which advances with age (Piaget, Gattegno, & Hodgson, 1962). Play is considered natural, innate, and predictable in how it manifests in children’s behaviour. That is, as children become older, we expect them to play in increasingly complex ways. This perspective aligns with Piaget’s (1971) theory of child development, whereby children’s cognitive development advances with age through intrinsic phases. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1978) also views play as universal and intrinsically motivated. However, rather than a function of age, Vygotsky suggests play complexity is the product of psychological functioning, social interactions, and material environment (Fleer, 2013). In other words, complex play needs positive, engaging interactions with others and access to appropriate resources and a safe environment, and will be mediated by the individual child’s psychological development.  

These interpretations anchor play within prominent child development theories, but critics argue doing so limits play to its psychological aspects and places the motivation to play exclusively at the individual level. Instead, they propose play is simultaneously intrinsically and socially motivated, and shaped by the dynamic socio-cultural structure of children’s proximal and distal relationships, including parental support for play at home, and community values (e.g., Göncü & Gaskin, 2011; Metaferia, Fuko & Takacs, 2021). 

The influence of culture on play

The view that caregivers and communities influence children’s play is supported by a growing body of evidence. In fact, cross-cultural evidence from the 1980s and 1990s was already indicating that the influence is extensive and affects the way children play, who they play with, and where and when they engage in play. For example, Mexican and Indonesian mothers who did not value play were reported to provide fewer opportunities for their child to play with them (Farver & Howes, 1993; Farver & Wimbarti, 1995), while European-American parents deemed play important for children’s cognitive development, saw themselves as valuable play partners and participated more in their child’s play (Farver, Kim & Lee, 1995). Socio-economic status, including parents’ own education, can have a similar influence on their attitude to, and practices around, play, with more educated parents maintaining more support for play (e.g., Bloch & Wichaidat, 1986). 

Because culture and community shape play in this way, how and when play occurs will differ between cultures. Thus, what play looks like through a culture-specific lens – and how it is subsequently defined – will also inevitably vary (Gaskins, 2006). For example, some non-Western cultures, such as Mayans, hold weak support for the developmental benefits of play (Rogoff et al., 1993). As a result, children's participation in community activities, such as dances, may be seen as a process of cultural assimilation rather than play. Cultural variation in what constitutes play leads to differences in the way researchers measure the quality and quantity of play across contexts, and design play-focused interventions.

In response to these cultural differences, researchers like Roopnarine (2012) and Gaskins (2006) have highlighted the significance of positionality in research on play. They call on researchers to acknowledge the rhetoric – be it a cultural or theoretical framework – to which they subscribe and be mindful of the way in which it can impose a definition of play on communities. This is especially important when designing interventions and messaging around play. For example, is an intervention introducing a new play activity, or trying to shift perspectives and reimagine an existing cultural practice as play?

Playful experiences

Contention surrounding the definition of play has led many researchers to instead turn their attention to the characteristics of playful experiences. 

Fromberg and Bergen (2006) suggest playful experiences are symbolic, active, pleasurable, meaningful, intrinsically motivated, voluntary, rule-governed and episodic. Eberle (2014) defines play as comprising anticipation, surprise, pleasure, understanding, strength and poise. According to Sicart (2014) play is contextual, disruptive, creative, personal and autotelic – ‘an activity with its own goals and purposes, with its own marked duration and spaces and its own conditions for ending,’ (p. 16). The LEGO Foundation developed its five play characteristics from reviews of play and learning literature and consultations with members of its global network (Zosh et al., 2017). These characteristics are: meaningful, joyful, socially interactive, actively engaging, and iterative. 

Comparison of these different descriptors provide two key takeaways. First, there are three commonly occurring notions: the notion of enjoyment/pleasure; the notion of personal resonance/meaningfulness; and the notion of active engagement. This implies some agreement among researchers that playful experiences are enjoyable, meaningful and actively engaging – though the balance of these features is undetermined. Unsurprisingly then, the second key takeaway is that there is variance in these descriptions. For example, there is inconsistency about whether or not playful experiences are purely ‘for play’s sake’ (autotelic), or if they are inherently social.

Considering different definitions of playfulness tells us that playful experiences are not determined by the presence or absence of one particular characteristic. Instead, playfulness is a combination of elements which often includes – but is not limited to – some extent of pleasure, meaningfulness and active engagement. Viewing playful experiences through this lens is helpful when designing playful interventions (e.g., play-based learning approaches which have an explicit learning objective for the play rather than promoting play ‘for play’s sake’). 

With this in mind, we will now review how different types of play can be leveraged to support children’s cognitive, psycho-social and physical growth. 

Types of play

Free play

Free play refers to play which is unstructured and child-directed; play that is intrinsically motivated, personal, pleasurable, meaningful, and fundamentally autotelic. In free play, children choose the purpose of their play, and drive its narrative. For example, children decide which materials to draw on and how to use them. Sometimes this entails manipulating raw materials to create something new, like making a ‘cake’ out of sand. It can also mean repurposing an item either in terms of functionality - like using an upside-down floppy hat as a bed for a pretend baby - or symbolically, like using the same hat to represent a crown. 

Free play also sees children select their own play partners. This often involves negotiation as children develop shared goals and rules for their play, and ascribe roles to one another. Play partners can also include adults, although free play requires the play be initiated and directed by the child. Equally, free play can be a solitary experience. For example, a child may play alone with dolls, tinker with different objects, climb a tree, or take on the role of a character in their own imagined world without involving a partner.

There are two common misconceptions around ‘free play’. First, the general term ‘play’ is often synonymised with free play which is deceiving because, while free play is child-led and autotelic,

Illustrator: Tanvee Nabar

this is not true of all types of play (as discussed below). Second, because free play is regarded as ‘play for play’s sake’ it is presumed to offer no tangible benefits in terms of cognitive or other skills. In actuality, free play enables children to develop a range of skills. Creativity is practiced through pretend play where new realities are established and sustained with imagination. Gross and fine motor skills are honed through physical activity, including manipulation of materials to serve new purposes, while the child’s agency within their play experience contributes to enhanced self-confidence, independence, and decision-making. Socio-emotional competencies such as empathy and conflict resolution are also developed. For example, pretend play requires ‘putting oneself in another’s shoes’ as the child acts out another character, while interpersonal conflicts can occur during the negotiation of goals and respective roles. The shared pretense of pretend play is further considered to provide a safe medium for children to ‘rehearse and master’ constructive conflict resolution strategies (e.g., Dunn, 1993). 

Guided play

In guided play, the adult maintains a role in initiating and orienting the play. Thus, unlike free play, guided play may not be intrinsically motivated or autotelic. For example, a parent may invite their child to create a vehicle from loose parts (e.g., packing boxes, bottle caps, buttons, sticks). The adult then scaffolds the child’s experience through asking questions and offering hints which support the child’s understanding and application of concepts. 

Through scaffolding, the adult introduces an element of intentional learning to the play experience. Rather than the child incidentally discovering that mixing all the different coloured paints together makes a shade of brown, the adult may pose a question: ‘I wonder what happens when you mix yellow and blue?’, leading the child to discover that this combination produces green. 

To prevent guided play slipping into a form of instruction (whereby the activity is adult-initiated and adult-directed), it is important the child directs the activity.

Illustrator: Tanvee Nabar

In other words, the child should be allowed and encouraged to make decisions about what they do at any given moment, and this autonomy should be genuine, not merely perceived by the child. Weisberg et al. (2015) warn that tokenistic child-direction turns the experience into “chocolate covered broccoli” - an educational activity disguised as play.

Research suggests the balance between freedom and structure in guided play is especially helpful for maximising learning in preschool and childcare environments (e.g., Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013; Weisberg et al., 2013). Such settings offer plenty of opportunity to apply learning, but unless these opportunities are identified and leveraged by caregivers or teachers, children are unlikely to recognise and consciously apply principles like scientific concepts (Fleer, Gomes, & March, 2014). This might seem obvious when we compare guided play to free play. However, guided play has also been found to produce better learning outcomes than traditional didactic teaching methods. A study by Fisher and colleagues (2013), for example, found children who learned the properties of a triangle through guided play were better at extending the concept to less-obvious examples of triangles (e.g., with large internal angles) than those who learned through traditional instruction.

Conclusion

Play occupies an important, even sacred, space in the lives of children all over the world. Even so, no universally accepted definition of play exists. This is because children’s play is shaped by their culture, community, and environment and therefore what we recognise and label as play is not immediately common across contexts. Despite the lack of consensus on what play is, play remains a central topic of child development research, and there is increasing evidence to support its fundamental role in children’s acquisition of a range of essential competencies. 

About the Author 

Hannah Simmons is a Researcher Affiliate in the TalkTogether project with research interests in socio-emotional, language and literacy development in the Global South. With expertise in African Studies and Swahili, as well as Child Development and Education, Hannah’s work has included research and development of edutainment content, design and management of education projects for bilateral donor agencies, and consultation on education initiatives with a focus on East Africa. Recently, Hannah worked as Impacts Research Officer for TalkTogether. Hannah is currently Tanzania Co-Country Lead for the EdTech Hub – a global research partnership which supports governments in LMICs to generate and apply evidence to strengthen education systems.

References

Burghardt, G. M. (2005). The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fagen, R. M. (1981). Animal Play Behavior. Oxford, UK, and New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, P., & Caro, T. (1985). On the Functions of Play and Its Role in Behavioral Development. Advances in The Study of Behavior, 15, 59-103.

Piaget, J., Gattegno, C., & Hodgson, F. M. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton.

Piaget, J. (1971). The Theory of Stages in Cognitive Development. In D. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fleer, M. (2013). Theorising Play in the Early Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Göncü, A., & Gaskins, S. (2011). Comparing and extending Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s understandings of play: Symbolic play as individual, sociocultural, and educational interpretations. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the development of play (pp. 48–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Metaferia, B. K., Futo J., & Takacs, Z. K. (2021). Parents’ views on play and the goal of Early Childhood Education in relation to children’s home activity and Executive Functions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation. Frontiers of Psychology, 12, 646074.

Farver, J. M., & Howes, C. (1993). Cultural differences in American and Mexican mother–child pretend play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 344–358.

Farver, J. M., & Wimbarti, S. (1995). Indonesian children’s play with their mothers and older siblings. Child Development, 66(4), 1493–1503.

Farver, J., Kim, Y. K., & Lee, Y. (1995). Cultural differences in Korean- and Anglo-American preschoolers' social interaction and play behaviors. Child Development, 66(4), 1088–1099.

Bloch, M., & Wichaidat, W. (1986). Play and school work in the kindergarten curriculum: Attitudes of parents and teachers in Thailand. Early Child Development and Care, 24, 197–218.

Gaskins, S. (2006). Cultural perspectives on infant-caregiver interaction. In J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction (pp. 279–298). Oxford, England: Routledge.

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., Mosier, C., Chavajay, P., & Heath, S. B. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(8), v–179.

Roopnarine, J. L. (2012). What is the state of play? International Journal of Play, 1(3), 228-230.

Fromberg, D., & Bergen, D. (2006). Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Eberle, S. G. (2014). The Elements of Play: Toward a Philosophy and a Definition of Play. American Journal of Play, 6(2), 214-233.

Sicart, M. (2014). Play matters. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread, D. (2017). Learning through play: a review of the evidence. The Lego Foundation.

Dunn, J. (1993). Social interaction, relationships, and the development of causal discourse and conflict management: Social norms, social positions and the cognitive functioning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(4), 391-401.

Weisberg, D. S., Kittredge, A. K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Klahr, D. (2015). Making play work for education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(8), 8-13.

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy. Mind, Brain and Education, 7(2), 104-112.

Weisberg, D. S., Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Talking it up: Play, language, and the role of adult support. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 39-54.

Fleer, M., Gomes, J., & March, S. (2014). Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(1), 38–48.

Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers' acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child Development, 84(6), 1872-1878.