Play-based learning and intentional

teaching: Forever different?

Edwards, S. (2017)
 Play-based learning and intentional teaching:
Forever different?
http://dx.doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.2.01

Susan Edwards
Learning Sciences Institute, Australian Catholic University

PLAY-BASED LEARNING IS a cornerstone of early childhood education provision. Play

provides opportunities for young children to explore ideas, experiment with materials and
express new understandings. Play can be solitary, quiet and reflective. Play can also be
social, active and engaging. While play is commonly understood as the basis for learning in
early childhood education, this is not always the situation in all settings. Cultural variations
in learning and play suggest that social interactions and observational learning also create
powerful pedagogical learning environments for young children. International and national
research highlights the value of sustained and reflective interactions between children and
educators in promoting children’s learning. Increasingly, the notion of quality in play-based
pedagogy invites educators to integrate traditional beliefs about play with new insights into
the role of social interactions, modelling and relationships in young children’s learning.
Overseas, the movement towards quality play-based pedagogy reflects debate and policy
initiatives captured by the notion of intentional teaching. In Australia, the Early Years
Learning Framework makes explicit reference to intentional teaching. Intentional teaching
arguably engages educators and children in shared thinking and problem solving to build
the learning outcomes of young children. However, the pedagogical relationship between
play-based learning and intentional teaching remains difficult to conceptualise. This is
because the value placed on the exploratory potential of play-based learning can appear
to be at odds with the role of intentional teaching in promoting knowledge development.
This paper reaches beyond binary constructs of play and intentional teaching, and
invites consideration of a new Pedagogical Play-framework for inspiring pedagogical and
curriculum innovation in the early years.
This paper was a keynote address at the 2016 Early Childhood Australia National
Conference addressing the theme Inspire—be inspired to reach beyond quality.

Introduction which Sharon Ryan and Stacie Goffin described in their

2008 paper as the ‘teacher missing in action’, in my
Today I wish to speak about a problem. The problem is that own practice as a new graduate. At the time, I was well
of play and intentional teaching. I have been grappling with grounded in constructivism and knew that play was to form
this problem for about 16 years now, ever since I graduated the cornerstone of early childhood education. Yet, when as
from my Bachelor of Education at RMIT University. I loved a young and freshly graduated teacher I set the children
my time at RMIT. I was taught there by three teachers, to their play, they did not always seem to learn in the way
in the truest sense of the word—Beth Marr, Anne Hanzl my textbooks had promised. Sometimes, I also needed to
and Andrew Walta. Technically, they taught mathematics, teach them. Yet, if I was teaching, were they still playing?
literature and psychology, but really they taught me that it
is always possible to learn. They showed me that learning
was about creating new ideas and concepts that would Defining a ‘problem’
help students see the world in a different way. They also
Now, before I talk too much further about play and teaching
instilled in me a drive to see the problem of play and
I would first like to consider what I mean by a ‘problem’.
teaching in a new way. I first encountered this problem,
I have a very dear colleague, Joce Nuttall, and together

4 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

we have co-authored publications, jointly supervised Grow out of conflicting elements in a genuine
research candidates and completed research projects problem—a problem which is genuine just because
for over a decade. In the course of our collaborations, the elements, taken as they stand, are conflicting. A
we have shared many rich and detailed conversations, significant problem involves conditions that for the
mainly focused on the problems we face in our work. Often moment contradict each other (p. 3).
towards the end of these discussions Joce will begin to Therefore, a problem is ‘intractable’ in the way Joce
smile, ‘this’ she says to me ‘is an intractable problem’. describes it because the very elements of which it is
Intractable, according to the dictionary, is something ‘not comprised conflict with each other. Here I am then, over
easily managed, controlled or solved’. Intractability defines a decade since first crash-landing into the problem of play
what I mean by ‘problem’—something not easily managed and teaching, finally able to define the problem I have
or controlled. For me, the relationship between play and been facing for so long—play is not the same as teaching.
teaching has been an intractable problem, not something
I have managed easily, and definitely not something I have As a new teacher, I thought this problem was unique
managed to control. However, just because a problem to my classroom. That it was in some way my fault for
might be difficult, I see no reason to avoid engaging with not knowing how to integrate what I understood and
what it has to offer. As Joce’s smile tells me—playing valued about play with what and how I wanted to help
around with a problem is actually a source of great joy; and children learn through teaching. Now I am a bit wiser,
anyway, Jerome Bruner (1971) was adamant that problem I understand that this problem actually exists within many
solving motivates learning. levels of early childhood education—both nationally and
internationally. I know that the problem still exists today
I shall stay a moment longer on the notion of a problem. in practice—despite the advent of the Australian Early
John Dewey (1969) as many of you would know is a great Years Learning Framework (EYLF), which advocates that
friend of early childhood education. His thinking about teachers use both play-based learning and intentional
progressive education is a mainstay of the early years. teaching with young children. I have seen from my
He had this to say about children’s play: reading of the empirical literature that the problem exists
Play is not to be identified with anything which the globally, including in the United States of America (USA)
child externally does. It rather designates his mental (Johnson, 2014), parts of Europe (Stephen, 2010), South
attitude in its entirety and in its unity. It is the free play, Africa (Ogunyemi & Ragpot, 2015) and Asia (Adams &
the interplay, of all the child’s powers, thoughts and Fleer, 2016; Cheng, 2001) where the desire of scholars to
physical movements, in embodying in a satisfying defuse the conflict between play as a forward movement
form, his [her] own images and interests. Negatively, it and teaching as an act of intentionality has been strong
is freedom from economic pressure—the necessities and sustained. A powerhouse read on the problem as
of getting a living and supporting others—and from the experienced in Asia, where the constructivist view of play
fixed responsibilities attaching to the special callings of also conflicts with Confucian thinking is provided by Amita
the adult. Positively, it means that the supreme end of Gupta in her 2014 book, Diverse early childhood education
the child is fullness of growth—fullness of realisation of policies and practices. I also see the problem evidenced
his [her] budding powers, a realisation which continually in policy, where increased attention worldwide has been
carries him [her] on from one plane to another (p. 118). paid to the importance of early learning for children’s later
developmental outcomes such that more is now being
Like others in this field of early education that we are likely
asked of early childhood education than ever before (see,
to be familiar with, including Piaget, Froebel, Montessori
for example, Nyland & Ng, 2016).
and Pestalozzi (Bergen, 2014), Dewey (1969) understood
play as a forward movement. He spoke also in his work
of problems—or more specifically, problems pertaining to Play and teaching in practice
education. One such problem of which he spoke was the
relationship between the child and the curriculum. The I want to spend some time now thinking about this
only way past a problem, according to Dewey (1969), problem—that play is not the same as teaching from the
was to move forward in such a way that we move from perspective of practice. I do not work with young children
a problem state to a more cohesive whole or a new way anymore in an educative sense, so to return to practice
of understanding what it means to learn and teach—that I have to imagine that I have a classroom full of 26 four-
is to educate. Dewey (1969) believed that problems year-old children, or that I am responsible for six toddlers
encountered in the field of education emerge from for the better part of an entire day. Or even, that I have
differences in theory, such as the difference between play under my care up to five babies aged six weeks to two
and teaching. Problems, he argued, are ‘never gratuitous years of age. As part of the National Quality Framework,
or invented’, rather they: released only seven years ago, I am aware that the EYLF
(DEEWR, 2009) defines both play and intentional teaching.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 2 J u n e 2 0 1 7 5
This represents an advance upon where I was as a new that had to meet the political situation of its time. The EYLF
graduate when there was, pretty much, nothing to guide manages to: reference the various theoretical flavours for
my practice. Turning to the EYLF I read that play-based thinking about children’s play and learning circulating the
learning is, a ‘context for learning through which children nation; address and identify the learning outcomes for
organise and make sense of their social worlds, as they more than 1.5 million children distributed across almost
engage actively with people, objects and representations’ eight million square kilometres of land-based and cultural
(DEEWR, 2009, p. 6). I also read what the EYLF has to say diversity; recognise the United Nations Convention on the
about intentional teaching: Rights of the Child (1989); be deployed in a range of early
childhood education and care settings; and fundamentally
Intentional teaching involves educators being deliberate,
commit to improved educational outcomes for Aboriginal
purposeful and thoughtful in their decisions and action.
and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Regardless of any
Intentional teaching is the opposite of teaching by rote
flaws the EYLF might contain, it is a document of which
or continuing with traditions simply because things have
we should be proud. I believe this because the EYLF
‘always’ been done that way (p. 5).
was brought forth from the sector, for the sector, and
The definitions offered by the EYLF confirm my problem. accordingly, provides a platform for driving forward
Play is not the same as teaching because play is a context practice, thinking, research, debate and the consequent
for learning where children actively engage with people professionalisation of our field in a way that is uniquely
and objects for learning. In contrast, intentional teaching ours—that is Australian. A significant publication regarding
involves being deliberate and purposeful in my decisions the birth of the EYLF that is well worth a read was written
and actions. The solution, in terms of moving forward to a by some of the consortium members in 2009 including,
new cohesive whole, is not to be found in these definitions. Jennifer Sumsion, Sally Barnes, Sandra Cheeseman, Linda
As I imagine myself in practice, I know that I would find Harrison, Anne Kennedy and Anne Stonehouse.
the EYLF helpful—because it at least acknowledges that
I should be providing play and intentional teaching, whereas
once I was firmly convinced my role was only to provide Engaging the problem
the play as the cornerstone for the learning. However, Well, I have taken this long so far to establish that we have
I think I would still grapple with understanding where I was a problem—both in early childhood education and in the
to be located in the play as the teacher. EYLF more specifically. Play is not the same as teaching.
The EYLF illustrates that we ask an immensely complex Moving past a problem, says Dewey (1969), relies on
task of practicing early childhood teachers. Children of ‘getting away from the meaning of terms that is already
any given number create a situation in which there are fixed upon and coming to see the conditions in fresh light’
multiple backgrounds, knowledges, languages, skills, (pp. 3–4). In my own engagement with this problem of play
beliefs, values, attitudes and motivations, all of which and teaching, it took me a very long time to move away
mix, swirl, spill, frustrate and delight. To work from within from the terms themselves. At first, after I finished my
this situation with two opposing definitions—those of play PhD and commenced working at Monash University I was
and intentional teaching in the absence of a concept that convinced the solution to the problem lay in developing
integrates how they are to work in practice is not for the a deeper understanding of play itself. I was advised at
faint hearted. For this complexity, we may pay those who this time in my reading by the Foundation Professor of
do take on the challenge as little as AU$20 per hour. Early Childhood Education at Monash University, Professor
Marilyn Fleer. Marilyn has done much to advance thinking
Now, in pointing out that the EYLF defines play and
about play in the Australian and international context. In
intentional teaching differently, I do not intend to be critical
particular, she has highlighted the cultural nature of young
of the document itself. Instead, I am trying to highlight
children’s play and the extent to which constructivist
the construction of the educational problem as defined by
notions of play should not be considered universal for all
Dewey (1969)—in essence, within our national framework
children (Fleer, 2009). This was to be important in my own
for early learning we have two conflicting elements: Play
thinking, leading me to understand that not all learning
and intentional teaching. An intractable problem, as Joce
for all children was play-based and/or self-constructed.
would say, if ever there were one. I am in fact, of the firm
Observational learning and modelling are also significant
belief that the EYLF is one of the greatest accomplishments
for many, many children.
of early childhood education this nation has ever seen.
Others also advised me to read as widely as I could.
The collective will, political energy, time and vision for
Professor Elizabeth Wood of Sheffield University
children as learners invested in the achievement of the
introduced me to a range of play theorists I had not
EYLF is testimony to the work of generations of Australian
previously encountered, including Gregory Bateson
early childhood professionals—policy-makers, teachers,
(1976), Brain Sutton-Smith (2009) and Johan Huizinga
researchers and representational bodies included. In fact,
(1955). Another colleague, Professor Mindy Blaise of
the consortium leading the EYLF to its eventual realisation
Victoria University, gave me perhaps the best advice of
should be commended for the achievement of a document

6 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

my career. We were just chatting one day in the corridor under the guidance of a nominated curriculum framework,
at work and she said to me ‘read outside of your field’. then the children should learn something consequent to
This advice gave me the courage to venture outside ‘early their attendance. This body of research advocated different
childhood education’ and read deeply and widely of many forms of teacher engagement with children during play.
different ideas. Since then, in addition to my reading of For example, in New Zealand, Judith Duncan (2009) spoke
Vygotsky on sociocultural theory, I have also engaged with of intentional teaching, as did Ann Epstein (2007) in the
the sociology of childhood, media studies, cultural theory USA. In Australia, Fleer (2011) described conceptual play
and most recently, for my work on young children learning and Sue Dockett (2010) pedagogical activity. While in the
in a digital age, in the area of computing studies with a United Kingdom, Siraj-Blatchford (2009) introduced the
small dabbling in quantum mechanics. Reading outside of concept of sustained shared thinking. It is important at
the problem area itself has given me a broader framework this point to remember that my problem has always been
for reflection. with my role as the teacher in the child’s play. It is not
to discount the value of play as understood or defined
With my courage thus fortified, and increasingly justified
by others. I am not denying, according to the definition
as I discovered new and exciting ways to think about play,
provided by Rubin, Fein and Vandenberg (1983), that play
I found myself engrossed by issues of power, gender,
is valuable in of, and for itself, as a freely chosen, literal
politics, ethics, peer relations, cross-cultural studies, policy,
and intrinsically motivated activity. I am focused instead on
the outdoors, popular-culture and digital technologies—
the integration of play and teaching as a source for learning
all as they pertain to play and its role and enactment in
in early childhood educational contexts.
early childhood education. With a deeper understanding
of the sheer complexity of play that now extended beyond Amy and I settled on the three main types of play that we
a constructivist framework I was slowly, as Dewey would consider in our work by following Elizabeth Wood’s
(1969) describes, working my way towards seeing play (2010) definition of pedagogical play. This definition showed
as one of the elements of the problem in a ‘new light’. play occurring along a continuum of activity with adult-
However, I was not there yet because I still saw teaching directed activities at one end and child-directed activities
as oppositional to play. The act of integration that would at the other. Our first play-type we called open-ended
take play and teaching for me to a new educative whole play—what Wood (2010) defined on her continuum as free
had not yet been achieved. play. Our second play-type was modelled play. On Wood’s
(2010) continuum, this was considered structured play.
Determined to keep grappling with the problem, I collaborated
Finally, we called our third play-type, purposefully-framed
with another early career researcher also at Monash
play. According to Wood’s (2010) definition, purposefully-
University—Amy Cutter-Mackenzie, now Professor of
framed play involved adult-directed activities. A very strong
Education at Southern Cross University. Amy’s specialisation is
paper has consequently been published on these three
in the field of environmental education. Together, we embarked
play-types as they are evidenced in the existing research
on a program of research in which we were keen to discover
literature about pedagogical play. Authored by Jeffery
how early childhood teachers could help children learn about
Trawick-Smith (2012), the paper outlines three distinct
sustainability using play. The content area was significant at
approaches to play-based learning in early childhood
the time we were working, as UNESCO had declared 2005 to
education. These include what Trawick-Smith calls the
2014 the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.
‘trust in play’ approach, the ‘facilitate play’ approach and
Furthermore, early childhood had recently been recognised as
the ‘enhance learning outcomes through play’ approach.
a critical foundation for the provision of effective sustainability
education at all levels of schooling (Pramling Samuelsson Once I would have said that Amy and I were lucky enough
& Kaga, 2008). to have won an Australian Research Council Discovery
grant to support our research. However, earlier this year, I
By this time, the research in the early childhood sector had
attended a lecture by Professor Sue Grieshaber on women
also largely established that play-based learning alone was
in the academy as part of the Dean’s Lecture Series at
insufficient for supporting children’s acquisition of content
Monash University. Professor Grieshaber said that women
knowledge; there was an increasing acceptance that the
often attribute their career achievements to ‘luck’ as a way
teacher needed to perform some type of role in the play
of downplaying the appearance of their success. So today,
experiences provided to children to enable learning. Broadly
in honour of Sue’s leadership, I will say instead that due
speaking, this literature describes what Wood and Attfield
to hard work and persistence, Amy and I were awarded
(2005) define as ‘pedagogical play’—or the use of play in
a grant that enabled us to research the three play-types
early childhood education by teachers to foster and support
on which we had settled—open-ended, modelled and
children’s learning. For example, prominent early childhood
purposefully-framed play.
scholars Cecilia Wallerstedt and Niklas Pramling (2012)
from Sweden, and Amos Hatch (2010) from the USA, The details of the research, what we did, how and why
advocated that if children were to attend early childhood and the analysis of the data are widely available now in
educational settings, and if these settings were to operate published form (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2013).

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 2 J u n e 2 0 1 7 7
However, to sum up very quickly—we worked with 16 ‘good’ because ‘the teacher is showing us what to do’.
teachers from a diverse range of socioeconomic and Purposefully-framed play was considered important by
cultural settings in urban, central and semi-rural areas teachers because it enabled them to build across, and
of Melbourne. In total, each teacher worked with seven within, children’s experiences, to introduce new ideas
children meaning that we had 114 child participants across using a variety of materials such as books, posters, songs
the entire project. The teachers attended a workshop in and videos. Children enjoyed this play-type because they
which we explored the history of play in early childhood were ‘talking with the teacher’ or ‘learning new things’.
education and considered the three play-types. We also Each play-type was as equally valuable as the other—they
examined various sustainability topics in early childhood just offered qualitatively different opportunities for learning
education such as, animal habitats, plant life and habitat and teaching. Second, the teachers spoke of being aware
destruction. We invited the teachers to work with a of the play-types as used in combination, not solo forms
combination of different play-types and to develop and of teaching or learning. Instead of relying only on open-
implement a play experience for each type that embodied ended play to promote learning, teachers described using
a sustainability concept. We visited the teachers in the field modelled play to support concepts embedded in open-
and videoed the implementation of each play-type. We then ended play experiences. They talked of how purposefully-
returned to each site and showed the participating children framed play extended children’s thinking and consequently
the video footage. We invited the children to share their informed the quality of play they viewed occurring in the
thoughts about what they were doing in each scenario. children’s open-ended play. Thus from these findings, we
We videoed the children as they responded to the footage established two principles for using the three play-types:
of themselves at play. Then we returned to the teachers
1. All play-types are of equal pedagogical value.
and showed them the footage of the children watching the
original footage. We invited the teachers to reflect on what 2. Play-types can be used in multiple combinations to
they saw happening in each play type. We also collected support learning.
reflective diaries and copies of the planning and assessment (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2011; Cutter-Mackenzie,
maintained by the teachers. Our research was conducted Edwards, Moore & Boyd, 2014.)
with careful attention paid to matters of child assent.
Most recently, we have represented the two principles
The next three years were what I call the ‘thinking years’. The for using the three play-types in a diagram that we call
time in which we read, analysed the data, wrote, re-wrote and the Pedagogical Play-framework (Figure 1). ‘Pedagogy’ in
engaged in conversation. By this time, I was working at the terms of the educative use of play as I outlined earlier, and
Australian Catholic University as a Principal Research Fellow. ‘framework’ as a teacher guide or concept for action about
It was a blessed period—I was relatively new to the university how play and intentional teaching may be understood as
and had few demands placed on my time. I was able to focus, Dewey (1969) says, ‘steadily as a whole’ (p. 5).
think and reflect. I worked closely with a group of exciting
PhD candidates also dedicated to exploring play—Dr Yeshe
Colliver, Dr Deborah Moore, Jo Bird, Elizabeth Hunt, Kristen Theory
Hobby, Sarah Young and Debbie Ryder among others. Amy I will very quickly touch on how we have been theorising the
and I expanded our little team of two to include Deborah Pedagogical Play-framework. Here I draw predominately
Moore and an early career researcher from Southern Cross on Vygotsky’s ideas. The first is his thinking about
University—Dr Wendy Boyd. To compress the work of these combinatorial activity. Vygotsky (2004) says that there
‘thinking years’ into one short paragraph, I will now share are two main human activities for generating new ideas
with you what we found. and representations. The first is reproductive activity and
First, contrary to our expectations it was not one play-type the second combinatorial activity. Reproductive activity
over another that the teachers and children valued. Instead, occurs when children learn to respond to their environment
the children and teachers talked about the play-types in by reproducing what they experience. Reproductive
qualitatively different ways. Open-ended play was valued activity is important because it helps children relate to
by teachers because it allowed children opportunities the environment in which they are growing up. However,
to explore materials and to understand the possibilities children need to do more than relate to their environment.
and properties of the materials they were working with. Children also need to be adaptive so that they can respond
Teachers could also observe children’s play and establish to new or unexpected challenges that might occur within
an understanding of how and why children were thinking that environment. Combinatorial activity focuses on the
about particular ideas and topics—the teachers talked here creation of new objects or ideas that help children to
of learning from the children. Children enjoyed open-ended respond to new challenges within their environment.
play because it was fun, interesting and often messy. They Vygotsky (2004) argues that combinatorial activity is a
could play with their friends. Modelled play in contrast was form of imagination because children draw from what is
valued by teachers because they could directly illustrate available in the environment to create new ideas or objects.
concepts to children. Children explained this play-type as

8 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

Figure 1. The Pedagogical Play-framework (Edwards, Cutter-Mackenzie, Moore & Boyd, 2017)

For Vygotsky, imagination is not necessarily about what The second idea is Vygotsky’s thinking concerning the Zone
we might call ‘imaginative’ or pretend play—imagination of Proximal Development (ZPD). This idea is contested in
is a mental process that helps children make meaning of the scholarship about sociocultural theory (Chaiklin, 2003).
their world. Core to his thinking about combinatorial activity However, very bluntly, I will describe two interpretations.
is the argument that the richer the child’s world—what he One interpretation holds that the ZPD illustrates how
calls the child’s ‘reality’—the richer their imagination will children are able to enact capacities within their play that
be. Vygotsky (2004) says: they cannot yet sustain outside of their play—Vygotsky
(1976) talks about sisters pretending to be sisters.
The creative activity of the imagination depends directly
For example, a child can pretend to love her sister enough to
on the richness and variety of a person’s previous
die for her in a pretend game of Frozen, yet outside of the play,
experience because this experience provides the material
she may not be able to love this same sister enough to share
from which the products of fantasy are constructed.
a desired treat. The second interpretation holds that the ZPD
The richer a person’s experience, the richer is the
is the difference between what a child can do or understand
material his imagination has access to. This is why a
alone, compared to what they are able to do with the support
child has a less rich imagination than an adult because
of an adult (Vygotsky, 1987). In the context of the Pedagogical
his experience has not been as rich (pp. 14–15).
Play-framework, open-ended play provisions opportunities for
In the Pedagogical Play-framework, combinatorial activity children’s play such that they can enact within their play what
suggests that teachers can be located in the play by they cannot yet do outside of play, and simultaneously allows
ensuring the creation of a rich reality for children. This teachers to provide support for new ideas or ways of thinking
occurs via the provision of materials for exploration and within the ZPD via modelled and purposefully-framed play.
experimentation as valued by teachers and children in
The final idea is Vygotsky’s (1987) work on mature concepts.
open-ended play. It also occurs via the modelled and
Mature concepts are developed by children when an everyday
purposefully-framed opportunities valued by teachers and
concept merges with what Vygotsky calls an academic or
children for discussing and connecting existing and new
scientific concept (e.g. Askew, 2013). An everyday concept is
information and ideas because content knowledge can,
something the child experiences on a daily level. For example,
and should be, viewed as part of the rich reality we provide
we brush our teeth after eating. A scientific concept explains
for children. Multiple combinations of play-types in which
a phenomenon—plaque causes cavities. Vygotsky (1987)
all three are equally valued for the unique contribution they
argues that children acquire mature concepts as the everyday
make to the richness of the young child’s world make for
and the scientific merge—so they understand we brush our
rich imaginations.
teeth after eating so that we do not get holes in our teeth.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 2 J u n e 2 0 1 7 9
The advantage of a mature concept for young children is Just last year, in the final hurdle in my quest for a
that mature concepts have explanatory power (Gelman Professorship, I faced a promotions panel. I had included
& Kalish, 2006). Children know what they are doing in my application details of the Pedagogical Play-framework.
and why. Helping children establish mature concepts I had to take questions from the panel. One of the members
therefore promotes their agency because they have a raised his hand and said to me, ‘Well you know this is all
basis for informed decision-making. The Pedagogical well and good for young children, but what does it mean for
Play-framework directly attends to the establishment of tertiary education?’ I was momentarily shocked because I
children’s mature concepts because everyday concepts thought he was being disrespectful to our sector—you know
may be explored and experienced within open-ended that assumption we often face in early childhood education,
play, scientific concepts provided via modelled play that unless something is good for the older learner it is not
and the creation of mature concepts is supported with really of any significant value. I rallied quickly.
purposefully-framed play.
Well, first, I said, the framework is temporal—a teacher
can use the play-types in combination across any period
Conclusion of time, in a matter of minutes or in a planned sequence
across a week or longer. Second, you need to imagine
The problem with which I opened this talk of play and that for older people you would use the word 'learning'
teaching is for me no longer quite the same. I have taken instead of play. This means you have a learning framework
my lessons from those three teachers so long ago at RMIT based on the open-ended, modelled and purposefully-
very well. Learning means the creation of new ideas that framed learning used in multiple combinations. In a
help us see the world anew. Learning is always possible— university, this framework could be used by lecturers in
even if it takes 16 years. In the Pedagogical Play-framework, their face-to-face and online delivery.
I have a new concept that helps me to see the world of play
and teaching differently. For me, play and teaching are no A dawning light of realisation spread over his face.
longer contrasting elements of an intractable problem. The He smiled and he nodded. I think I taught him about play.
teachers and children with whom Amy and I worked, the
conversations in our team, the theoretical ideas of Vygotsky References
(1976, 1987, 2004) on which I drew, the advice I took in,
Adams, M., & Fleer, M. (2016). The relations between a ‘push-
and how and what to read—all of it coalesced in helping
down’ and ‘push-up’ curriculum: A cultural-historical study of
me to see both play and teaching in a new light. Now it home-play pedagogy in the context of structured learning in
seems so easy. Don’t make play oppositional to teaching. international schools in Malaysia. Contemporary Issues in Early
Seek to value the open-ended, modelled and purposefully- Childhood, 17(3), 328–342.
framed for their qualitatively different characteristics, then Askew, M. (2013). Mediating learning number bonds through a
use them in multiple, endless and iterative combinations to Vygotskian lens of scientific concepts. South African Journal of
teach within the play—or as Dewey (1969) says, ‘see the Childhood Education, 3(2), 1–20.
educative steadily and as a whole’ (p. 5). Bateson, G. (1976). A theory of play and fantasy. In J. Bruner,
A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play and its role in development and
With this new concept, I have an entirely new world to evolution (pp. 119–130). New York, NY: Basic Books.
explore. You see, while I was so busy engaging this problem, Bergen, D. (2014). Foundations of play theory. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise
the world outside of early childhood education did not stay & S. Edwards (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of play and learning in early
still. Instead, the age of touchscreen technologies arrived, and childhood (pp. 5–21). London, UK: SAGE Publishing.
issues of the environment and sustainability became even Bruner, J. (1971). The act of discovery. In J. Raths, J. Pancella & J.
more prominent, increasing emphasis began to be placed Van Ness (Eds.), Studying teaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 190–201). Upper
on children’s content learning, especially in STEM (science, Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
technology, engineering and mathematics), and the world of Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s
outdoor learning—of forest schools and bush kindergartens— analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis,
V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s education theory in cultural
has become increasingly appealing. So as I look around and
context (pp. 39–65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
see that there are new demands on early childhood education
I see these demands through the light of the Pedagogical Cheng, D. (2001). Difficulties of Hong Kong teachers’ understanding
and implementation of ‘play’ in the curriculum. Teaching and
Play-framework. I wonder how teachers would use the Teacher Education, 17, 857–869.
framework to teach mathematical or science concepts. I think
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Edwards, S., Moore, D., & Boyd, W.
about using the framework so that technologies represent (2014). Young children’s play and environmental education in early
the different types of play that are integrated in combination childhood education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
with those existing in the classroom. I reflect on how the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Pedagogical Play-framework may be used to support children (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, Being & Becoming: The Early Years
in the acquisition of mature concepts about sustainability to Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth
drive their agentic behaviour such that they make respectful of Australia.
decisions pertaining to their life on this planet.

10 Australasian Journal of Early Childhood

Dewey, J. (1969). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: Ryan, S., & Goffin, S. (2008). Missing in action. Teaching in
The University of Chicago Press. early care and education. Early Education and Development,
19(3), 385–395.
Dockett, S. (2010). The challenge of play for early childhood
education. In S. Rogers (Ed.), Rethinking play and pedagogy Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the
in early childhood education. Concepts, contexts and cultures pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early childhood
(pp. 32–48). New York, NY: Routledge. education: A Vygotskian perspective. Educational and Child
Psychology, 26(2), 77–89.
Duncan, J. (2009). Intentional teaching. Early childhood education
educate. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Stephen, C. (2010). Pedagogy: The silent partner in early
years learning. Early Years: An International Journal of
Edwards, S., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2011). Environmentalising
Research and Development, 30(1), 15–28. http://dx.doi.
early childhood curriculum through play-based pedagogies.
org/10.1080/09575140903402881
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 51–59.
Sumsion, J., Barnes, S., Cheeseman, S., Harrison, L., Kennedy,
Edwards, S., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2013). Pedagogical play-
A., & Stonehouse, A. (2009). Insider perspectives on developing
types: What do they suggest for learning about sustainability in
Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning
early childhood education? International Journal of Early Childhood,
Framework for Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,
43(3), 327–346.
34(4), 4–13.
Edwards, S., Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Moore, D., & Boyd, W. (2017).
Sutton-Smith, B. (2009). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA:
Finding the balance: A play-framework for play-based learning and
Harvard University Press.
intentional teaching in early childhood education. Every Child,
23(1), 14–15. Canberra, ACT: Early Childhood Australia. Trawick-Smith, J. (2012). Teacher–child play interactions to achieve
learning outcomes. In R. Pianta (Ed.), Handbook of early childhood
Epstein, A. (2007). The intentional teacher. Choosing the best
education (pp. 259–277). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
strategies for young children’s leaning. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child
(Article 12) . Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations
Fleer, M. (2009). A cultural historical perspective on play: Play
High Commissioner for Human Rights.
as a leading activity across cultural communities. In I. Pramling-
Samuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood Vygotsky, L. S. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development
settings (pp. 1–17). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. of the child. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play and its
role in development and evolution (pp. 537–555). New York, NY:
Fleer, M. (2011). ‘Conceptual play’: Foregrounding imagination
Basic Books.
and cognition during concept formation in early years education.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(3), 224–240. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber,
A. S. Carton (Eds.) & N. Minick (Trans.), The collected works of L.
Gelman, S., & Kalish, C. (2006). Conceptual development.
S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285).
In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
models of human development (6th ed., pp.687–730). New York,
NY: Wiley. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood.
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
Gupta, A. (2014). Diverse early childhood education policies and
practices. Voices and images from five countries in Asia. New Wallerstedt, C., & Pramling, N. (2012). Learning to play in a goal
York, NY: Routledge. directed practice. Early Years: An International Journal of Research
and Development, 32(1), 5–15.
Hatch, A. (2010). Rethinking the relationship between learning and
development: Teaching for learning in early childhood classrooms. Wood, E., & Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early
The Educational Forum, 74(2), 58–68. childhood curriculum (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publishing.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens. A study of the play element in Wood, E. (2010). Developing integrated pedagogical approaches
culture. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. to play and learning. In P. Broadhead, J. Howard & E. Wood
(Eds.), Play and learning in the early years (pp. 9–27). London, UK:
Johnson, J. (2014). Play provisions and pedagogy in curricular
SAGE Publishing.
approaches. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise & S. Edwards (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of play and learning in early childhood
(pp.180–192). London, UK: SAGE Publishing.
Nyland, B., & Ng, J. (2016). International perspectives
on early childhood curriculum changes in Singapore
and Australia. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 24(8), 465–476. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1102416
Ogunyemi, F. T., & Ragpot, L. (2015). Work and play in early
childhood education: Views from Nigeria and South Africa. South
African Journal of Childhood Education, 5(3), 1–7.
Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Kaga, Y. (2008). The contribution
of early childhood education to a sustainable society. Paris,
France: UNESCO.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G. & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play.
In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology,
Vol. 4, Socialization, personality, and social development.
(4th ed.) (pp. 694–774). New York, NY: Wiley.

Vo l u m e 4 2 N u m b e r 2 J u n e 2 0 1 7 11
Copyright of Australasian Journal of Early Childhood is the property of Early Childhood
Australia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.