the multiple meanings of play: exploring preservice teachers' beliefs about a central element...

This article was downloaded by: [Mount Allison University 0Libraries]On: 29 April 2013, At: 07:34Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

The Multiple Meanings of Play: ExploringPreservice Teachers' Beliefs About aCentral Element of Early ChildhoodEducationSara A. S. Sherwood a & Stuart Reifel ba Department of Education, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas,USAb Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Texas atAustin, Austin, Texas, USAPublished online: 20 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Sara A. S. Sherwood & Stuart Reifel (2010): The Multiple Meanings of Play:Exploring Preservice Teachers' Beliefs About a Central Element of Early Childhood Education, Journalof Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31:4, 322-343

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.524065

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.524065

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31:322–343, 2010Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.524065

The Multiple Meanings of Play: ExploringPreservice Teachers’ Beliefs About a Central

Element of Early Childhood Education

SARA A. S. SHERWOOD1 AND STUART REIFEL2

1Department of Education, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, USA2Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,Texas, USA

This basic qualitative study explores preservice teachers’ beliefs about what constitutesplay. Research for this study focused on 7 preservice teachers enrolled in an early child-hood through Grade 4 practicum course at a small private university in south centralTexas. The findings of this study indicate that both on an individual and group level the7 preservice teachers seemed to believe that play had multiple meanings. Even thoughcommonalities existed among some of the attributes used by the preservice teachers todescribe play, no two preservice teachers used the same combination of attributes todefine play. Instead, based on the influences that had shaped their beliefs, they strungthese attributes together in unique ways. Thus, for each of the preservice teachers, playseemed to have an individualized meaning consisting of multiple parts.

Preservice teachers’ beliefs play a powerful role in shaping what and how they learn,and understanding these beliefs has implications for teacher education (Borko & Putnam,1996; Calderhead, 1996; Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996;Genishi, Ryan, Ochsner, & Yarnall, 2001; Hollingsworth, 1989; Holt-Reynolds, 1992;Pajares, 1992; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; Richardson, 2003; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, &Moon, 1998). Accordingly, research in the field of education has addressed various top-ics on preservice teachers’ beliefs, such as their beliefs about academic content areas,diversity, teaching and learning, and the influences that shape those beliefs (File & Gullo,2002; Groulx, 2001; Hancock & Gallard, 2004; Hart, 2002; Isikoglu, 2008; Levin &He, 2008; Scott, 2005; Skamp & Mueller, 2001). However, preservice teachers’ beliefsabout play remain largely unaddressed despite the intricate role of play in early childhoodeducation.

Today’s early childhood teachers grapple with how to implement play in their class-rooms. Some teachers use it as a tool for classroom management and a reward forcompleted work, while others use it to support children’s learning and development across

Received 23 July 2009; accepted 7 October 2009.The research for this study comes from the first author, Sara Sherwood’s, doctoral dissertation,

which she completed at the University of Texas at Austin. The second author, Stuart Reifel, servedas Sara Sherwood’s dissertation supervisor.

Address correspondence to Sara A. S. Sherwood, Department of Education, Trinity University,1 Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212-7200, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

322

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013

Multiple Meanings of Play 323

different domains (Fromberg, 2006; Moon & Reifel, 2008; Ranz-Smith, 2007; Trawick-Smith, 2005, 2008). The diverse use of play in the classroom may arise, in part, from thetension between the gradually diminishing focus on play in early childhood classrooms onthe one hand and the intrinsic value given to play by early childhood education stakeholderson the other.

Play has a long and involved history in early childhood education. A central element ofthe first kindergarten classrooms in Germany (Brosterman, 1997; Froebel, 1902), kinder-garten in the United States initially held on tightly to its Froebelian roots (Fromberg, 2006;Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Weber, 1984). Over time, however, early childhood education hasundergone broad changes, including the replacement of metaphysical philosophies withscientifically based approaches as the basis for curriculum decisions, and an increasedfocus on cognitive growth and academic content along with or in place of social andemotional growth and development (Goffin & Wilson; Weber).

As early as the 1930s, kindergarten classrooms began shifting away from their play-based foundation towards more teacher-directed activities (Weber, 1984). This shift gainedmomentum in the late 1980s and early 1990s when schools began adding academic con-tent to the early childhood curriculum, which resulted in less time for play (Elkind, 1990;Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Jeynes, 2006). With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Actin 2002, a federal law emphasizing accountability and high stakes testing, play has contin-ued to be reduced or eliminated from early childhood classrooms (Fromberg, 2006; Frost,2003; Miller & Almon, 2009). Fromberg, in her paper on the current status of kindergartenand early childhood teacher education, noted that the push for achievement on high stakestests has forced some teachers to focus on academic instruction at the expense of morechild-centered and play-based teaching strategies. Although high stakes testing has ledsome early childhood professionals to move away from child-centered, play-based prac-tices, Fromberg noted that teaching academic content and using child-centered, play-basedpractices are not mutually exclusive. Rather, educators can teach academic content throughplay-based teaching strategies.

Even within this changing context, there appears to be some agreement among earlychildhood education stakeholders that play has value (Bennett, Wood, & Rogers, 1997;Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Einarsdottir, 2002; Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002; Lee, 2006;Moon & Reifel, 2008; Ranz-Smith, 2007; Riojas-Cortez & Flores, 2004). For instance,growing out of empirical evidence suggesting that play may reflect and encourage chil-dren’s development and learning, early childhood educational organizations such as theAssociation of Childhood Education International (ACEI) and the National Associationfor the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) encourage teachers to create environ-ments, to provide materials, and to establish time for play in their daily routines (Copple &Bredekamp; Isenberg & Quisenberry). And, although teachers use a variety of approachesto incorporate play in their classrooms, as a group they describe play as being valu-able for young children (Bennett et al.; Einarsdottir; Lee; Moon & Reifel; Ranz-Smith;Riojas-Cortez & Flores). In particular, they seem to believe that play either directly orindirectly supports children’s learning and development.

Further complicating the role of play in early childhood education is the nature ofthe construct itself (Ailwood, 2003; Fein & Stork, 1981; Johnson, Christie, & Wardle,2005; King, 1979; Klugman & Fasoli, 1995; McLane, Spielberger, & Klugman, 1996).Specifically, it is a commonly used term, but not a term that connotes a commonlyaccepted meaning (Klugman & Fasoli). For instance, although numerous early childhoodeducation researchers choose to define play by its characteristics or by types of behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013

324 S. A. S. Sherwood and S. Reifel

(Fein & Stork; Johnson et al.; Klugman & Fasoli; Krasnor & Pepler, 1980; Rubin, Fein,& Vandenberg, 1983; Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990), others have raised questions aboutdefining play in this fashion, suggesting that these traditional definitions romanticize andsimplify play (Ailwood, 2003; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Moreover, the theoretical perspec-tives underlying play represent divergent notions about the role of play in children’s lives(Ailwood; Frost, Wortham, & Reifel, 2005, 2008; Sutton-Smith; Trawick-Smith, 2005,2008).

The centrality of play in the inception of early childhood education and the value thatplay has within the field of early childhood education would seem to invite research onpreservice teachers’ beliefs about play. Preservice teachers’ beliefs influence their learn-ing during teacher preparation (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Calderhead, 1996; Calderhead &Robson, 1991; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Genishi et al., 2001; Hollingsworth,1989; Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; Richardson, 2003;Wideen et al., 1998). Because of the extensive amount of time they spend in schools priorto teacher preparation, preservice teachers enter their teacher preparation programs withwell-established beliefs (Pajares; Lortie, 1975). Moreover, the beliefs preservice teachersbring to their programs appear to be diverse (Calderhead & Robson; File & Gullo, 2002;Minor, Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, & James, 2002; Schmidt & Kennedy, 1990; Smith, 1997).For instance, Schmidt and Kennedy’s study reveals significant differences among preser-vice teachers’ beliefs about writing and mathematics. Using questionnaire data from alarger National Center for Research on Teacher Education (NCRTE) study on preserviceand inservice teachers enrolled in 10 different teacher preparation programs, Schmidt andKennedy analyzed and categorized participants’ survey responses into 108 belief patternsfor writing and 54 belief patterns for mathematics. Although there were fewer mathemat-ics belief patterns than writing belief patterns, the researchers highlighted the range ofbeliefs across both content areas. Because of these differences in beliefs, Schmidt andKennedy cautioned against assuming that all preservice teachers bring the same beliefs totheir teacher preparation programs.

During teacher preparation, preservice teachers use their incoming beliefs as anorganizational tool to determine what is germane and applicable in a given courseand to analyze other teachers’ practices as well as their own (Calderhead & Robson,1991; Hollingsworth, 1989; Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Pajares, 1992). For instance, inHollingsworth’s longitudinal qualitative study of 14 preservice teachers enrolled in a 5thyear educational program, she suggested that the preservice teachers’ beliefs acted “as fil-ters for processing program content and making sense of classroom contexts” (p. 168).Specifically, she found that the preservice teachers’ understanding of constructivist learn-ing, the learning approach emphasized in their teacher education program, seemed to beinfluenced by previously held beliefs about teaching and learning.

Because preservice teachers’ beliefs influence their learning during teacher prepara-tion (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Calderhead, 1996; Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Genishi et al., 2001; Hollingsworth, 1989; Holt-Reynolds,1992; Pajares, 1992; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; Richardson, 2003; Wideen et al., 1998), itis not surprising that uncovering preservice teachers’ beliefs about play has been describedas an important step towards effectively addressing play in teacher preparation (Klugman,1996). Yet, to date, only one study has explored this topic. In the sole study addressingthis issue, Klugman surveyed an incoming class of college freshmen (n = 169), whodescribed themselves as “interested in work with children” (p. 15), to determine theirunderstanding of play. Findings indicated that participants entered their 1st year of college

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


with childhood memories of play, including playing with toys, playing outdoors, partici-pating in recess, and engaging in pretend and constructive play. Klugman suggested thatthese childhood experiences shaped the students’ current perspectives on play. In addition,the preservice teachers seemed to describe play by its form, recalling particular play activi-ties. Even though their descriptions of play overlapped, broad variation existed among theirresponses. Thus, they did not seem to have a singular understanding of play.

Given the importance of play in children’s learning and development (Elias & Berk,2002; Katch, 2001; Marsh, 1999; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Riojas-Cortez, 2001), and thecentrality of preservice teachers’ beliefs in learning to teach (Genishi et al., 2001; Patrick& Pintrich, 2001; Richardson, 2003; Wideen et al., 1998), and in light of the limitedamount of research examining their intersection, this article, which comes from a largerstudy examining preservice teachers’ beliefs about play and the influences that shapedthose beliefs, explores the following research question: What do preservice teachers believeconstitutes play?

Research Design

The interpretivist paradigm, which suggests that humans live in a “real” world but howthey understand that world varies (Crotty, 1998), framed this study. Research growing outof this paradigm focuses on developing a deeper understanding of the topic under study.In line with this study’s overarching interpretivist paradigm, a basic qualitative method-ology guided data collection and analysis (Merriam, 1998). This commonly used form ofresearch, which is often used in educational studies, seeks “to discover and understanda phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved”(Merriam, p. 11).

Reflective of the interpretivist paradigm and the basic qualitative methodology thatframed this study, intensity sampling—a type of purposeful sampling—was used for theselection of the research site and participants. With intensity sampling, “the researcherwants to identify sites or individuals in which the phenomenon of interest is strongly repre-sented” (Mertens, 1998, p. 262). Using pilot study data, a researcher determines the extentto which the site and participants will provide quality data to fulfill the study’s purpose andto answer its research questions (Mertens).

Based on pilot study findings, this current study was conducted in an early childhoodpracticum at Hawkins University (all names and locations are pseudonyms), a small pri-vate university in south central Texas with an enrollment of 2,300 students. This practicumwas purposefully selected because pilot study data indicated that students in the coursewere thoughtful, reflective, and willing to engage in discussions about their beliefs duringinterviews, classroom discussions, and in formal and informal writing assignments. Thus,in line with intensity sampling, this research location offered a context in which “the phe-nomenon of interest” (Mertens, 1998, p. 262), namely preservice teachers’ beliefs aboutplay, was clearly represented.

Participants were recruited for this study on the first day of class during the spring2007 semester. Because the goal of purposeful sampling is “to discover, understand, andgain insight” (Merriam, 1998, p. 61) into the issue under study, researchers need to ensurethey “select a sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam, p. 61). Accordingly,this study focused on the 7 preservice teachers in the course—Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,Joan, Mary and Kate— who provided their informed consent to participate in the threedata collection strategies of the study, including interviews, field note observations, anddocument collection.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Because the preservice teachers’ beliefs about play did not seem based upon theiryear in school or based on their certification level, and given that pseudonyms alone“do not necessarily protect participants” (Glesne, 1999, p. 121), the 7 preservice teach-ers are described in the aggregate. In terms of the latter, given this study’s small samplesize and because certain characteristics, such as ethnicity, were unique to an individ-ual preservice teacher, connecting certain demographic information with an individualpreservice teacher’s pseudonym would inadvertently lessen that preservice teacher’sanonymity.

All 7 participants were female and were 18 years of age or older. In terms of ethnicity,4 of the preservice teachers described themselves as Caucasian; 1 of the preservice teachersdescribed herself as Jewish and Caucasian; 1 of the preservice teachers described herself asBlack; and 1 of the preservice teachers described herself as being adopted from China byan American mother and a Belgian father. Additionally, the latter preservice teacher notedthat she had been raised and educated in Texas throughout her life. Among the 7 preserviceteachers, 5 were sophomores, one was a 1st-year student, and 1 was a senior. Furthermore,all 7 preservice teachers planned to complete one of Hawkins University’s certificationprograms (i.e., early childhood through Grade 4, Grades 4–8, or Grades 8–12) and after-wards planned to pursue a career in teaching. Specifically, 5 of the preservice teachersplanned to complete the early childhood through Grade 4 certification program, 1 of thepreservice teachers planned to complete the Grades 4 through 8 certification program, and1 of the preservice teachers planned to complete either the early childhood through Grade4 certification program or the Grades 4 through 8 certification program. After gradua-tion, 5 of the 7 preservice teachers planned to pursue careers working with children inearly childhood education. Of the other 2, 1 planned to teach in the upper elementarygrades, and the other planned to teach in middle school. Each of the preservice teach-ers had completed some educational coursework at Hawkins University. Although someof the preservice teachers’ previous coursework had focused on early childhood develop-ment and discussed play tangentially in that context, the practicum course was the firstclass they had taken at Hawkins University that explicitly addressed play in significantdetail.

In keeping with this study’s basic qualitative research methodology (Merriam, 1998)and with the data collection techniques suggested for research on beliefs (Kagan, 1990;Pajares, 1992; Wideen et al., 1998), the larger study on which this article is based usedmultiple forms of data collection, including (a) one-on-one interviews, (b) direct obser-vations of the university-based portion of the practicum course, and (c) analysis of courserelated documents, to explore the preservice teachers’ beliefs about play. However, becausethe preservice teachers in this study only explicitly defined play during the one-on-oneinterview and were not asked to define play in the practicum course or in course-relatedwritings, this article focuses on data collected from the one-on-one interviews.

In terms of the interviews, a 60-minute, audiotaped, one-on-one interview was con-ducted with each of the 7 preservice teachers. The interview had a semistructured format(see Merriam, 1998) that included a tentative list of interview questions developed from ananalysis of the pilot study interview questions and the literature on play used to frame thisstudy. Based on a participant’s response as the interview proceeded questions were addedand transformed as necessary (Merriam).

The central focus of the interview was an activity in which the preservice teacherswere asked to develop a list of items that might occur in a prekindergarten or kindergartenclassroom. This activity was open-ended, in that there was no time limit and the preserviceteachers could write down as many items as they wished. Thus, the total number of items

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


written down by each preservice teacher varied (Mean = 14, Median = 14, Range = 8 to24). The preservice teachers seemed to include two types of items on their lists, namely,general activities, such as games, dance, and music and specific activities, such as lookingaround while in the hallway, shapes (i.e. geometry activity involving art), and counting to100 by 1’s, 2’s, 5’s, and 10’s. In addition, one of the preservice teachers, Joan, also includedpersonal dispositions, such as fun and hurt feelings, and contextual characteristics, such asstructured, numbered, and not enough time. Next, the preservice teachers were asked tolabel as play or not play the items on their self-generated list and a separate list of 52 itemsthat was given to them by the researcher. Similar to their own self-generated lists, the listof 52 items included general activities, such as science center and painting, and specificactivities, such as participating in cops and robbers where the participants pretend to shootone another, and cutting out magazine pictures that begin with the letter B (see AppendixA and Appendix B for categorized activities).

Beyond the two initially suggested categories, the preservice teachers on their ownor based on a researcher suggestion created a third category, called middle. Their use ofthis category unfolded in one of three ways: (a) one of the preservice teachers, on her ownwhile categorizing the activities, marked individual activities to indicate that they fell intoa separate category other than play or not play; (b) three of the preservice teachers askedif they could use a third category besides play or not play when organizing the activities;and (c) three of the preservice teachers neither created nor asked to create a third category;however, during the course of the interview the researcher asked them if they wanted toplace activities in a middle category and each of the three chose to do so. The preserviceteachers seemed to categorize activities as middle if they perceived an activity to be playunder certain conditions and not play under other conditions and/or if they perceived anactivity to embody the qualities of both play and not play. Using their categorized activitiesas a reference, the researcher asked follow-up questions about their beliefs, such as (a) Howdid you decide which activities were play and not play? (b) What are the benefits of playand not play? (c) What do children learn during play and not play? (d) Talk to me about theactivities you placed in the middle category. For consistency throughout the remainder ofthis paper the terms play, not play, and middle are used to describe the preservice teachers’beliefs about play. Although these terms are somewhat awkward, they most clearly reflectthe language used during our discussions.

Because of the ongoing nature of data collection, data analysis occurred through-out the course of the study (Glesne, 1999). During data analysis, the work of Nespor(1987) and Vygotsky (1986) was used as frameworks; and elements of description,analysis, and interpretation were used to transform the collected data (Wolcott, 1994,2001). Specifically, three descriptive approaches suggested by Wolcott (1994) were usedincluding: (a) researcher order, in which written accounts were developed based on theresearcher’s unfolding understanding of the data; (b) chronological order, in which tem-poral accounts of the data were written; and (c) following an analytic framework, in whichliterature on play, beliefs, and preservice teachers’ beliefs was used as an external struc-ture to make sense of the collected data. In addition to the descriptive approaches, fouranalytic approaches suggested by Wolcott were used including: (a) identifying patterns,in which categories and themes were identified within the data; (b) displaying findings,in which tables were used to organize data within the identified categories; (c) highlight-ing findings, in which categories and themes were fleshed out by highlighting specificinformation within them; and (d) contextualizing findings in an analytic framework, inwhich the findings were tied to literature on play, beliefs, and preservice teachers’ beliefs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Finally, two interpretive approaches suggested by Wolcott were used including: (a) turn-ing to theory, in which the findings were interpreted in the broader context of literature onplay, beliefs, and preservice teachers’ beliefs; and (b) listening to gatekeepers, in which theadvice of more knowledgeable others was used to add to, to delete, or to change developinginterpretations.

Although description, analysis, and interpretation have been described separately, theywork in concert to assist researchers in transforming their data (Wolcott, 1994). With regardto this study, during the data transformation process, the researchers interwove elementsof description, analysis and interpretation to process the collected data. In the early going,the first author maintained descriptive accounts of how she was making sense of the col-lected data and she began the analysis process by identifying initial patterns within thedata. Specifically, each week the collected data were read and reflections, insights, andspeculations were recorded in an analytic memo (Glesne, 1999). In addition, she begansorting data into four broad categories based on the study’s initial research questions(Glesne).

As the study progressed, subcategories were generated within each research ques-tion and these findings were displayed in tables (Glesne, 1999; Wolcott, 1994). In termsof the research question addressed in this article—What do preservice teachers’ believeconstitutes play?—three categories were generated—freely chosen, process-oriented, andpositive affect—and a descriptive account was created for each and tied to relevant liter-ature. These descriptive accounts were shared with someone from within the educationalcommunity and feedback indicated that these initial categories focused too heavily on thecommonalities among the preservice teachers’ beliefs without sufficiently addressing theirdifferences. Returning to the data, individual descriptive accounts of the preservice teach-ers’ definitions of play were written chronologically, which led to the development of threebroader categories across the preservice teachers’ responses, namely (a) characteristics:play is . . .; (b) types: play includes . . .; (c) places: play occurs . . .; and 26 individ-ual attributes falling within these categories were also identified and these findings wereexplored using relevant literature. This recursive process highlighted the multiple mean-ings of play described by the preservice teachers and their individualized beliefs aboutwhat constitutes play. In an attempt to better understand these differences, the secondauthor suggested an analysis of the influences that might have shaped these beliefs. Usingthe influences on thinking described by Nespor (1987) and Vygotsky (1986) as frame-works, the researchers found that the preservice teachers seemed (a) to categorize the sameactivities differently and (b) to assign different meanings to identical categorizations of anactivity as play.

Two commonly cited techniques were used to enhance the study’s credibility (seeGlesne, 1999; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Mertens, 1998), including peer debriefing (Guba& Lincoln; Mertens) and member-checking (Guba & Lincoln; Mertens). In terms of peerdebriefing, the data collection, data analysis, and findings were shared and discussed withindividuals knowledgeable about the topic of study and with those outside the educationalcommunity who were less familiar with the topic. For instance, as previously described,sharing an early draft of the findings with someone from within the educational communitymoved the findings away from a narrow focus on the commonalities among the preserviceteachers’ beliefs towards a broader focus on the multiple meanings of play held by thepreservice teachers.

With regard to member-checking, the first author conducted two separate member-checks with participants. First, following their individual interviews, the researcher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


e-mailed each preservice teacher a transcript of her interview and invited her to partici-pate in a member-check session where she could verify the accuracy of the ideas that shepresented during her interview and could respond to clarifying questions. All 7 preser-vice teachers chose to participate in the first member-check session. These meetings lastedbetween 30 and 45 minutes and were audiotaped and transcribed.

In the second member-check, the researcher e-mailed an early draft of the findings toall 7 preservice teachers. Perhaps due to schedule constraints or level of interest, only 2of the preservice teachers, Jane and Mary, read and responded to the draft. Jane e-maileda brief response stating, “It looks fantastic! I figured out which pseudonym I am. . . .Congratulations on finishing the draft” (2007, Jane’s member-check e-mail). Mary senta longer response in which she noted that she enjoyed participating in the process andexpressed appreciation for how the preservice teachers’ beliefs had been tied to literatureon play. She stated, “When the professional literature is paired with preservice teachers’opinions it gives us a feeling of validity and comfort that our opinions are not silly orfar-fetched” (2007, Mary’s member-check e-mail). Neither Jane nor Mary raised concernsabout or recommended revisions to the draft.

Findings

On both an individual and group level, the 7 preservice teachers seemed to believe thatplay had multiple meanings. That is, as a group the preservice teachers surfaced multi-ple meanings of play. Even though commonalities existed among some of the attributesused by the preservice teachers to describe play—for instance, 7 of the preservice teachersdescribed play as being determined (i.e., chosen and/or structured) by the child—no 2 pre-service teachers used the same combination of attributes to define play. Instead, based onthe influences that had shaped their beliefs, which included their experiences with, feelingsabout, idealized notions of and universal assumptions about play (see Nespor, 1987, andVygotsky, 1986, for a further discussion of these influences; and Sherwood, 2009, for anextended discussion of these findings), they strung these attributes together in unique ways.Thus, for each of the preservice teachers, play seemed to have an individualized meaningconsisting of multiple parts. After providing an overview of the multiple meanings of playsurfaced by the 7 preservice teachers, a description of how play had an individualizedmeaning for each of them is offered.

The Multiple Meanings of Play

As a group, the preservice teachers seemed to believe that play had multiple meanings.Table 1 demonstrates the multiple attributes surfaced by the preservice teachers to describeplay. The first column lists the three broader categories identified across the preserviceteachers’ responses, namely, (a) characteristics: play is . . .; (b) types: play includes . ..; (c) places: play occurs . . .; and the 26 individual attributes identified as falling withinthese categories. The second column lists the number of preservice teachers who used aparticular category and its attributes in their descriptions of play. Finally, the third columnoffers examples of the preservice teachers’ descriptions of a particular attribute. Theseexamples are not meant to be an exhaustive list, but brief illustrations of a particularattribute.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Table 1Attributes Used by the Preservice Teachers to Describe Play

Category n Examples

Characteristic: Play is . . . 7 —

Child-determined 7 “Something they do of their own accord I feel is playversus when it is assigned as work” (2007, Jane’sinterview).

“I consider play to be less structured . . . to be lessinvolved with the teacher” (2007, Mary’s interview).

Creative andimaginative

6 Play is “based on their own imagination” (2007,Rose’s interview).

“I think art center and music center is creative . . . theyallow them to be creative and I think that a lot ofplay is creative—getting to use a different part of thebrain than just pure academics” (2007, Joan’sinterview).

Fun 5 Play is “more fun . . . a little less like school” (2007,Lisa’s interview).

Play is “fun, fun itself, because sometimes schoolwork is really not” (2007, Kate’s member-check).

Less serious 3 Play is “more free-spirited” (2007, Mary’s interview).Not focused on a

specific outcome3 “During play they have the choice to learn or not . . .

they don’t have to. It’s not ‘I have to take this downnow and remember it”’ (2007, Sue’s interview).

Physically active 3 Play is “something they [get] to be active and movingaround” (2007, Rose’s interview).

Socially interactive 3 “I think that play involves a sense of socialinteraction” (2007, Joan’s interview).

Less academic 2 I thought play was “the parts that were less orientedtowards math, science, reading and writing, that lefta lot of freedom” (2007, Kate’s interview).

Uncertain 2 “What is play?” (2007, Mary’s interview).Affective 1 Children feel “more emotions than in not play . . . [not

play] it’s not really emotional in any sort of way”(2007, Jane’s interview).

Viewed as a reward 1 Play “would be more on the reward side, if they dosomething good they get to go to centers, or playgames, or have snacks” (2007, Sue’s interview).

Passive learning 1 Play “doesn’t involve any brain work” (2007, Sue’smember check).

Not driven by externallyimposed rules

1 Board games are “relaxing and you don’t’ have tofollow the rules of the classroom” (2007, Joan’sinterview).

Relaxing 1 Board games are “relaxing and you don’t’ have tofollow the rules of the classroom” (2007, Joan’sinterview).

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Table 1(Continued)

Category n Examples

Positive 1 “I think play also needs to . . . [have] a positiveoutcome” (2007, Joan’s interview).

Valuable 1 “Whatever play is, it is definitely important” (2007,Mary’s interview).

Based on perspective 1 “If you ask a five-year-old what play is she’ll probablysay ‘When my doll and I have teatime.’ And, if youask a teacher or adult what is play they might have acompletely different opinion” (2007, Mary’sinterview).

Form: Play includes . . . 5 —

Playing games 3 “A game is playing” (2007, Sue’s interview).Pretending 3 “All pretending I decided was play, even drama”

(2007, Kate’s interview).House center 2 “Arguing about who gets to be the baby in the house

center . . . I wouldn’t say that arguing is play, but itobviously comes up while you’re playing” (2007,Lisa’s interview).

Swinging 1 Researcher: “The swinging would be play?” Lisa:“Yeah” (2007, Lisa’s interview).

Group activity 1 Figuring out how to join a group busy with an activity,“even though it’s [a group activity] designatedplaytime, it’s [figuring out how to join a group] notfun and play” (2007, Rose’s interview).

Singing 1 “I feel like all of the singing I would consider play”(2007, Kate’s interview).

Toys 1 Play “involve[s] toys” (2007, Kate’s interview).

Place: Play occurs . . . 3 —

On the playground/

outside2 Asking if you can have a turn on the swings, I

“pictured a playground and so that would be playdefinitely” (2007, Sue’s member-check).

At home 1 “I do more of what you could do in a school setting[not play] versus what you would do in a housesetting [play]” (2007, Mary’s interview).

As indicated by the table, some overlap existed among the broader categories and indi-vidual attributes used by the preservice teachers to describe play, while others were uniqueto an individual preservice teacher. For instance, with the first category, characteristics, all7 preservice teachers described play using underlying characteristics that they attributed toit. Defining play by its characteristics reflects the play characteristic discourse describedby Ailwood (2003), in which play is broken down into a list of perceived attributes. This is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


a common approach used by children (Howard, Jenvey, & Hill, 2006; King, 1979), prac-ticing teachers (Bennett et al., 1997; Moon & Reifel, 2008; Ranz-Smith, 2007) and earlychildhood education researchers (Christie & Roskos, 2006; Garvey, 1990; Johnson et al.,2005; Klugman & Fasoli; 1995; Krasnor & Pepler, 1980; Rubin et al., 1983) to defineplay. Several characteristics were used by a majority of the preservice teachers, such asall 7 preservice teachers suggesting that who controlled (i.e., chose and/or structured) theactivity, the child or the teacher, factored into their determination of whether or not it wasplay. Other characteristics were used by a minority of the preservice teachers. A case inpoint, only 1 of the preservice teachers, Joan, described play as relaxing, as not driven byexternally imposed rules, and as positive.

Unlike the first category, characteristics, which all 7 preservice teachers utilized, only5 of the preservice teachers used the second category, forms, in their descriptions of play. Inaddition, minimal overlap existed among the types of play they cited. For instance, someof the preservice teachers used the form of the activity when categorizing or describingactivities they considered exclusively play, such as Kate who stated, “I feel like all of thesinging I would consider play” (2007, Kate’s interview) and Sue who said “a game is play-ing” (2007, Sue’s interview). While others, such as Lisa, seemed to surface this attributeof play while describing her reason for categorizing certain activities as middle—such asasking if you can have a turn on the swings. Specifically, Lisa believed that swinging wasplay, but asking to swing was not play, as described in the following:

Lisa: Asking if you can have a turn on the swings . . . obviously if you’reoutside playing you’re going to ask, but I wouldn’t say the act of asking wasplaying.Me: The swinging would be play?Lisa: Yeah. (2007, Lisa’s interview)

For Lisa, the activity itself, swinging, was play but the communication illustrated in theexample was not play. Unlike early childhood education researchers who use the observ-able behavior demonstrated during a particular activity, such as functional play, symbolicplay, constructive play, and games with rules, to define play and to identify a child’s devel-opmental level (Klugman & Fasoli, 1995; Piaget, 1962; Rubin et al., 1983; Smilansky &Shefatya, 1990), the preservice teachers seemed to believe that particular activities (e.g.,swinging) were themselves was play.

Among the preservice teachers, the third category, place (i.e., where an activityoccurs), was the least utilized. Mary used place, whether an activity occurred at homeor at school, to determine if a particular activity would be appropriately categorized asplay or not play. In contrast to the broad fashion in which Mary used place, Sue and Joanused place more narrowly to describe an individual attribute of a particular play activity.For instance, Joan described kickball as play in part because it occurred “outside” (2007,Joan’s interview) and Sue determined that asking if you can have a turn on the swingswould be play because she “pictured a playground and so that would be play definitely”(2007, Sue’s member-check). Within the play literature, the notion of place can be foundwithin a broader discussion of context, which in addition to place, may include materi-als and time, as well as personal, familial, cultural, and historical contexts (King, 1992;Monighan-Nourot, 1997; Rubin et al., 1983). Even though researchers have found a con-nection between one’s culture and how it manifests itself in play (Farver & Shin, 1997;Frost et al., 2005, 2008; Riojas-Cortez, 2001), none of the preservice teachers in this study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


described play in cultural terms. Rather, the 3 preservice teachers who addressed contextseemed to refer to place alone, namely, where they believed the activity would occur.

Individualized Meaning of Play

Although overlap existed among the meanings that the preservice teachers attributed toplay, based on the influences that had shaped their beliefs, each of the preservice teach-ers used a unique combination of attributes to define play and they strung these attributestogether in unique ways. Specifically, the preservice teachers seemed to (a) categorize thesame activities differently and (b) assign different meanings to identical categorizationsof an activity as play. In terms of categorizing the same activities differently, even whenthe preservice teachers’ definitions of play overlapped, their categorization of activitiesas play varied. For instance, Sue’s and Joan’s descriptions of play overlapped in severalareas, including that play is child-determined; play is fun; play is a game; play occursoutside/on the playground; and play focuses on process over product. However, theirdescriptions of play also diverged from one another. For instance, Joan described playas being creative/imaginative, relaxing, positive, socially interactive, physically active, asinvolving pretend and as not being driven by classroom rules, while Sue described play asbeing a reward, as involving passive learning and as being less academic.

Even though their definitions of play overlapped across several attributes, they cat-egorized the same activity, pretending to be George Washington, differently, with Suecategorizing it as not play and Joan categorizing it as play. Sue seemed to consider pre-tending to be George Washington not play because she believed children would not chooseto engage in it, stating that “most kids would not pretend to be George Washington justbecause he’s not as cool as Batman. So, that would probably be a teacher telling themto pretend to be George Washington” (2007, Sue’s interview). Sue’s description seemedto reflect her childhood experiences with play and to be based on her universal assump-tions about children’s play. Specifically, based on her childhood experiences, Sue seemedto believe that adults assign not-play activities and that children voluntarily engage in play.For instance, Sue described how her parents required her to complete activities that werenot play, such as “doing homework maybe like a math worksheet or reading something,like reading for class,” but that she freely chose to engage in play activities, such as “draw-ing” (2007, Sue’s member-check). Thus, Sue’s categorization of pretending to be GeorgeWashington seemed in part to be based on what she had learned about play as a child,namely that play is child-determined. In addition to being influenced by her childhoodexperiences, Sue’s categorization seemed to be based on her universal assumption that chil-dren would not choose to be George Washington. Instead, she suggested that they wouldprefer to pretend to be “Batman.” Because Sue believed children choose to engage in play,and based on her assumption that children would not voluntary choose to pretend to beGeorge Washington, she believed that this activity was not play.

Although like Sue, Joan characterized play as child-determined, Joan did not use thisattribute when categorizing pretending to be George Washington. Instead, based on herfeelings about the activity, she categorized it as play using a single attribute, namely thatit was fun, stating, “You get to pretend to be somebody else, you know, have fun” (2007,Joan’s interview). Throughout our discussions, Joan continuously emphasized fun as anattribute of play. In describing how children think, act, and feel during play, she stated,“They’re having fun. They’re enjoying time with others” (2007, Joan’s interview). In addi-tion, she often used fun either alone or in conjunction with another attribute to describeplay and play activities. Thus, Joan’s personal preference for pretending, that is her belief

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


that pretending to be George Washington is fun, seemed to influence her categorization ofit as play. As this example demonstrates, even though overlap existed among the attributesSue and Joan used to define play, different influences seemed to shape how they appliedthose attributes, which resulted in divergent categorizations of the same activity.

In addition to categorizing the same activities differently, at times the preservice teach-ers used different reasons to explain identical categorizations of an activity as play. Forinstance, Sue and Jane both categorized singing the ABC’s as play, but their grounds fordoing so varied. Sue believed singing the ABC’s was play because, as she stated, “I don’tmind singing . . .” (2007, Sue’s Interview). Based on her affective response to this activity,namely that she enjoyed it, Sue categorized this activity as play. In contrast, Jane, who alsocategorized singing the ABC’s as play, did so for a different reason. Based on her firsthandexperience working with children, Jane believed that they could be creative during thisactivity and therefore categorized it as play. Explaining why she categorized singing theABC’s as play and writing the ABC’s as not play, Jane stated:

Singing the ABCs, you don’t necessarily have to sing that song that we allknow. You can sing the ABCs in a different tune. I’ve heard kids make up theirown songs to go with the ABCs and you can just be original and there is notjust one right answer. (2007, Jane’s interview)

Because Jane believed that play is creative and she had heard children make up originaltunes when they were singing the ABC’s, she categorized this activity as play. Thus, evenwhen the preservice teachers categorized activities similarly, they might do so for differentreasons.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although each of the preservice teachers used the term play based on the influencesthat had shaped their beliefs, play had an individualized meaning. And these individu-alized beliefs about what constitutes play led to divergent beliefs about which activitiescounted as play and what underlying qualities made an individual activity play. Thesefindings align with the data presented in the single study on preservice teachers’ beliefsabout play (Klugman, 1996), and with research on preservice teachers’ beliefs in general.Specifically, similar to preservice teachers’ beliefs about play (Klugman) and preserviceteachers’ beliefs generally (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; File & Gullo, 2002; Minor et al.,2002; Schmidt & Kennedy, 1990; Smith, 1997), the preservice teachers in this study haddiverse beliefs. For instance, in Klugman’s study, although commonalities existed amonghis participants’ responses, the data suggested that his participants did not hold a univer-sal understanding of play. Similarly, although individual attributes of play surfaced by thepreservice teachers in this study overlapped, such as all 7 preservice teachers suggest-ing that play is child-determined, no 2 preservice teachers utilized the same combinationof attributes to define play. Instead, the influences that shaped their beliefs led them toconstruct unique beliefs about what constitutes play. Vygotsky (1986) used the differencebetween referents, the word itself, and meaning to describe how two people could applydifferent meanings to the same term. Specifically, he suggested that words “may coincidein their referents but not in their meanings” (p. 131). Thus, two people may use the sameterm, such as play, but based on their experiences, the term itself may have a differentmeaning for each of them. In this study, although all 7 preservice teachers used the termsplay, what it meant to each of them varied.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


The findings of this study also parallel those of King (1979) who found that the kinder-gartners and kindergarten teachers in her study attributed different meanings to play andwork. Specifically, the children in her study seemed to believe that an activity was play ifthey were “free to choose the activity, the materials, and the course of events, and if theproducts or acts were individual and the teacher was not involved” (p. 85), while teachersbelieved an activity was play if it was fun and creative. Thus, the findings of this currentstudy seem to affirm King’s by suggesting that multiple and not singular definitions of playexist. A contrast between King’s (1979) study and this study, however, is that King exam-ined two distinct groups, children and teachers, whereas this study examined one intactgroup, namely preservice teachers enrolled in the same teacher education program. Thus,the findings of this study suggest that not only may groups define and use the term playdifferently, but individuals within a group may also define and use the term play differently.

The findings of this study illustrate the difficulty of defining and conceptualizing playin teacher education. That is, the multiple meanings within the preservice teachers’ beliefsabout what constitutes play reflect the larger challenge of defining and conceptualizingplay within the field of early childhood education (Ailwood, 2003; Fein & Stork, 1981;Johnson et al., 2005; Klugman & Fasoli, 1995; McLane et al., 1996; Reifel, 1999). Itseems clear that no shared understanding or definition of play exists. For example, whilethe research literature on play points to social competence as an important attribute of play(e.g., Dodge, Coie, Pettit, & Price, 1990; Guralnick, 1990; Guralnick & Groom, 1988;Pettit & Harrist, 1993), preservice teachers do not bring this conceptualization of play totheir beginning frameworks for thinking about play. Moreover, even though the term itselfis mired in ambiguity (Sutton-Smith, 1997), early childhood educational organizations,such as NAEYC, continue to emphasize the critical importance of play in children’s livesand education (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Yet, it is unclear what is meant by play.For instance, the most recent Developmentally Appropriate Practice statement seems todescribe play in terms of form, such as “physical play, object play, pretend or dramatic play,constructive play, and games with rules” (p. 14), and the benefits of these forms, namelymultiple opportunities for learning and development. However, as the preservice teachersin this study demonstrated, even when they identified the same activities as play, theirreasons for doing so varied. For example, although Sue and Jane categorized singing theABC’s as play, Sue categorized this activity as play because she believed it was fun, whileJane categorized it as play because she believed it was creative. Thus, although NAEYCand other early childhood stakeholders encourage the use of play, on a practical level, it isunclear what they are advocating and why.

The absence of a universal understanding of play makes incorporating it into atheoretically aligned teacher education program challenging. Research suggests that a com-prehensive and consistent vision of teaching and learning is the most effective method tosupport preservice teachers’ development during teacher education (Brouwer & Korthagen,2005; Hart, 2002; Levin, 2003; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003). Yet, play as aconstruct does not have a consistent meaning. How then should early childhood teachereducators address play in their teacher preparation programs? The preservice teachers’beliefs about what constitutes play may provide a starting point. As a group, the 7 pre-service teachers in this study surfaced seven unique definitions of play, consisting of 26attributes. If a teacher educator were to surface these ideas in her course, she would have afirsthand example of the multiple ways play is defined. These definitions could then beenused to confront the multiple understandings of play, including how the field defines play,how they as teacher educators define play, how school administrators define play, howmentor teachers define play, and how young children define play.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


In making these connections, teacher educators can highlight the one congruent ele-ment of play across these definitions, namely that play is a complicated construct that is noteasily defined. This central feature of play can be used to illustrate why early childhoodteachers may grapple with whether and how to incorporate play in their classrooms andto discuss how preservice teachers can address these challenges in their own classrooms.Broadening their discussions of play by analyzing its complexity may allow teacher edu-cators to prepare future early childhood teachers who are better positioned to realisticallyand effectively address play in their future classrooms.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although attempts were made to enhance this study’s trustworthiness by engaging inmember-checks with the participants, the data set represents the preservice teachers’espoused beliefs about play. With this type of self-reported data, “the validity of theinformation is contingent on the honesty of the respondent” (Mertens, 1998, p. 105).Accordingly, the trustworthiness of these findings reflects the extent to which the preserviceteachers honestly expressed their beliefs about play during our one-on-one discussions. Toaccount for the limitations arising from using self-reported data, future research on pre-service teachers’ beliefs about play might examine whether and how these beliefs guidea preservice teacher’s practice during her field placement and internship experiences. Inaddition, future research might also incorporate external assessments by teacher educa-tors and mentor teachers to further examine the consistency of the preservice teachers’espoused beliefs about play.

Beyond future areas of research designed to address the limitations of this study, thefindings of this study suggest another avenue of research. Although this study has takena step toward understanding preservice teachers’ beliefs about what constitutes play, itremains one of only two studies addressing this issue. Future research might continue toexplore preservice teachers’ beliefs to determine whether and how the findings of thisstudy compare to other contexts. For instance, researchers might consider conducting alarge-scale survey study that would allow them to collect information on beliefs about playfrom a broad range of preservice teachers in diverse types of teacher preparation programs.There is much more to know about how early childhood teachers come to know about thiscore concept from our field.

References

Ailwood, J. (2003). Governing early childhood education through play. Contemporary Issues inEarly Childhood, 4, 286–299.

Bennett, N., Wood, E., & Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching through play: Teachers’ thinking andclassroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook ofeducational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York, NY: Abrams/Times Mirror.Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American

Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224.Calderhead, J. (1996). Teacher: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook

of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: MacMillan.Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of

classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Christie, J. F., & Roskos, K. A. (2006). Standards, science, and the role of play in early literacyeducation. In D. S. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: Howplay motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 57–73). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early child-hood programs, serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the researchprocess. London, UK: Sage.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Pettit, G. S., & Price, J. M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boys’groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 53, 620–635.

Einarsdottir, J. (2002, April 1–5). Manifestation of cultural beliefs in the daily practice of IcelandicPreschools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramaticplay? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 216–238.

Elkind, D. (1990). Academic pressures—Too much, too soon: The demise of play. In E. Klugman& S. Smilansky (Eds.), Children’s play and learning: Perspectives and policy implications(pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Farver, J. M., & Shin, S. L. (1997). Social pretend play in Korean- and Anglo-American preschoolers.Child Development, 68, 544–556.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.),The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers(pp. 63–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Fein, G. G., & Stork, L. (1981). Sociodramatic play: Social class effects in integrated preschoolclassrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 267–279.

File, N., & Gullo, D. F. (2002). A comparison of early childhood and elementary education students’beliefs about primary classroom teaching practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17,126–137.

Froebel, F. (1902). The education of man. New York, NY: D. Appleton.Fromberg, D. P. (2006). Kindergarten education and early childhood teacher education in the United

States: Status at the start of the 21st century. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27,65–85.

Frost, J. L. (2003). Bridging the gaps: Children in a changing society. Childhood Education, 80,29–34.

Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, S. (2005). Play and child development (2nd ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Education.

Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and child development (3rd ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Education.

Garvey, C. (1990). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Genishi, C., Ryan, S., Ochsner, M., & Yarnall, M. M. (2001). Teaching in early childhood educa-

tion: Understanding practices through research and theory. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1175–1210). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY:Longman.

Goffin, S. G., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood education: Appraisingthe relationship (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall/Merrill.

Groulx, J. G. (2001). Changing preservice teacher perceptions of minority schools. Urban Education,36(1), 60–92.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Social competence and early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 14,

3–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Guralnick, M. J., & Groom, J. M. (1988). Friendships of preschool children in mainstreamedplaygroups. Developmental Psychology, 24, 595–604.

Hancock, E. S., & Gallard, A. J. (2004). Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teaching andlearning: The influences of k-12 field experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15,281–291.

Hart, L. C. (2002). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and practice after participating in an integratedcontent/method course. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 1–14.

Hatch, J. A. & Freeman, E. B. (1988). Kindergarten philosophies and practices: Perspectives ofteachers, principals and supervisors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 151–166.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26, 160–189.

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work.American Educational Research Journal, 29, 325–349.

Howard, J., Jenvey, V., & Hill, C. (2006). Children’s categorization of play and learning based onsocial context. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 379–393.

Isenberg, J. P., & Quisenberry, N. (2002). Play: Essential for all children, a position paper of theAssociation for Childhood International. Retrieved from http://www.acei.org/playpaper.htm

Isikoglu, N. (2008). The effects of a teaching methods course on early childhood preservice teachers’beliefs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 190–203.

Jeynes, W. H. (2006). Standardized tests and Froebel’s original kindergarten model. Teachers CollegeRecord, 108, 1937–1959.

Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development and early education. Boston,MA: Pearson.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the GoldilocksPrinciple. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419–469.

Katch, J. (2001). Under deadman’s skin. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.King, N. R. (1979). Play: The kindergarteners’ perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 80(2),

80–87.King, N. R. (1992). The impact of context on the play of young children. In S. Kessler & B. B.

Swadener (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue(pp. 43–61). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Klugman, E. (1996). The value of play as perceived by Wheelock College freshmen. In A. L. Phillips(Ed.), Topics in early childhood education: Vol. 2. Playing for keeps: Supporting young children’splay (pp. 13–30). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Klugman, E., & Fasoli, L. (1995). Taking the high road toward a definition of play. In E. Klugman(Ed.), Play, policy and practice (pp. 13–32). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Krasnor, L. R., & Pepler, D. J. (1980). The study of children’s play: Some suggested future directions.In K. H. Rubin (Ed.), New Directions for Child Development: No. 9. Children’s Play (pp. 85–95).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, S. L. (2006). Preschool Teachers’ Shared Beliefs About Appropriate Pedagogy for 4-Year-Olds.Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 433–441.

Levin, B. (2003). Answering the “So what?” question: What do these case studies tell us? Casestudies of teacher development: An in-depth look at how thinking about pedagogy develops overtime (pp. 233–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Levin, B., & He, Y. (2008). Investigating the content and source of teacher candidates’ personalpractical theories (PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 55–68.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Marsh, J. (1999). Batman and Batwoman go to school: Popular culture in the literacy curriculum.

International Journal of Early Years Education, 7, 117–131.McLane, J. B., Spielberger, J., & Klugman, E. (1996). Play in early childhood development and edu-

cation: Issues and questions. In A. L. Phillips (Ed.), Topics in early childhood education: Vol. 2.Playing for keeps: Supporting young children’s play (pp. 5–12). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised andexpanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research Methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity withquantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten [Electronic version]. College Park, MD:Alliance for Childhood.

Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educa-tional beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. Journal of EducationalResearch, 96, 116–127.

Monighan-Nourot, P. (1997). Playing with play in four dimensions. In J. P. Isenberg and M. R.Jalongo (Eds.), Major trends in early childhood education: Challenges, controversies and insights(pp. 123–148). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Moon, K., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and literacy learning in a diverse language pre-kindergartenclassroom. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(1), 49–65.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–328.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers’ intuitive conceptions of learn-

ing, motivation and instruction: The role of motivational and epistemological beliefs. In B. Torff& R. Stenberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching in the intuitive mind: Student and teacherlearning(pp. 117–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance andschool adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19.

Pettit, G., & Harrist, A. (1993). Children’s aggressive and socially unskilled playground behav-ior with peers: Origins in early family relations. In C. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds(pp. 240–270). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

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

Ranz-Smith, D. J. (2007). Teacher perception of play: In leaving no child behind are teachers leavingchildhood behind? [Electronic version]. Early Education and Development, 18, 271–303.

Reifel, S. (1999). Play research and the early childhood profession. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Advances inearly education and day care: Vol. 10. Foundations, adult dynamics, teacher education, and play(pp. 201–212). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Teachersbeliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 43–64). Greenwich,CT: Information Age Publishing.

Riojas-Cortez, M. (2001). Preschoolers’ funds of knowledge displayed through sociodramatic playepisodes in a bilingual classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 35–40.

Riojas-Cortez, M., & Flores, B. B. (2004). Los padres y los maestros: Perspective of play amongbilingual stakeholders in public schools. In S. Reifel & M. Brown (Eds.), Advances in earlyeducation and day care: Vol. 13. Social contexts of early education and reconceptualizing play(pp. 276–288). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.

Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbookof child psychology: Vol. 4 (4th ed., pp. 693–774). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Scott, A. L. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ experiences and the influences on their intentions forteaching primary mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(3), 62–90.

Schmidt, W. H., & Kennedy, M. M. (1990). Teachers’ and teacher candidates’ beliefs [ResearchReport 90-4]. Retrieved from http://ncrtl.msu.edu

Sherwood, S. A. S. (2009). Play: A study of preservice teachers’ beliefs about a complex element ofearly childhood education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2009).

Skamp, K., & Mueller, A. (2001). A longitudinal study of the influences on primary and sec-ondary school, university, and practicum on student teachers’ images of effective primary sciencepractice. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 227–245.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development inlearning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105, 1399–1436.

Smilansky, S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socio-emotional and academic development in young children. Silver Springs, MD: Psychosocial &Educational Publications.

Smith, K. E. (1997). Student teachers’ beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice: Pattern,stability, and the influence of locus of control. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 221–243.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). Ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Trawick-Smith, J. (2005). Play and the curriculum. Play and child development (2nd ed., pp. 212–

245). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Trawick-Smith, J. (2008). Play and the curriculum. Play and child development (3rd ed., pp. 220–

257). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Weber, E. (1984). Ideas influencing early childhood education: A theoretical analysis. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of research on learning to teach:

Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68,130–178.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Appendix A: Self-Generated Items Categorized as Play, Not Play and Middleby the Preservice Teachers

The list below is divided into three sections—Items Categorized as Play, Items Categorizedas Not Play, and Items Categorized as Middle. Under each heading, the items that thepreservice teachers placed in each category are listed. The words in italics indicate theactual language that they used during the interview. Similar items identified by more thanone preservice teacher were grouped and labeled, such as “art-based activities” and “out-door activities.” To the right of the activity, the total number of preservice teachers whogenerated and placed an activity into a particular category is indicated. Finally, withineach category, activities are listed in descending order from the most to least number ofpreservice teachers categorizing a particular item as play, not play, or middle.

Items categorized as Play Total

Art-based activities: Arts and crafts; art time; activities for holidays n = 4Free play: Free play; free time; free creative playtime; center choices;

playtime in centersn = 4

Outdoor activities: Outside; recess; outdoor play n = 4Dramatic play: Dress-up; dramatic play; role playing n = 2Dance n = 2P.E. n = 2Sharing/show and tell n = 2Snacks, lunchtime n = 2Fun n = 1

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Items categorized as Play (Continued) Total

Games n = 1Looking around while in the hallway n = 1Music n = 1Naptime n = 1Storytelling n = 1Simple cooking n = 1Touching “pestering” each other in the hallway n = 1

Items categorized as Not Play

Academics: Academics; (math) math, basic math, numbers, addition,passage of time, money sense, counting to 100 by 1s, 2s, 5s, 10s,calendar; (literacy) learn how to write, get read stories, reading,phonetic awareness, reading practice, being read to as a class, workingwith sight words, reading time, spelling, handwriting; (social studies)learning about cultures

n = 6

Teacher-directed activities: Teacher conferencing (i.e., teacher workingwith reading groups); teacher giving instructions; carpet time;assessment

n = 2

Student groups: Student group work (i.e., working together on a mathworksheet); groups (i.e., sitting with other students, but workingindependently)

n = 2

Not enough time (i.e., not enough time allotted for play centers) n = 1Hurt feelings n = 1Tattle-tailing n = 1Structured and numbered play (i.e., qualities of classroom centers) n = 1

Items categorized as Middle

Centers, center activities n = 5Art time n = 1Beginning writing practice n = 1Music n = 1Puzzles n = 1Reading in smaller groups by level n = 1Science experiments n = 1Shapes (i.e., geometry activity involving art) n = 1Songs that help kids learn n = 1Talk n = 1

Appendix B: List of 52 Items Categorized as Play, Not Play and Middleby the Preservice Teachers

The list below summarizes the 52 items that were given to the preservice teachers. The firstcolumn lists the items that the preservice teachers were asked to categorize, and the three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


columns that follow indicate the total number of preservice teachers categorizing an itemas play, middle, and not play respectively. The items are listed in descending order fromthe most to the least number of preservice teachers categorizing an activity as play. Items1 through 7—Play-Doh, water and sand table, traditional board games, dress-up clothes,pretending to be superhero, tag, kickball— represent the seven items that all 7 preserviceteachers categorized as play. Items 42 through 52—writing the ABC’s, listening to theteacher read a story, reading independently, calendar time, math worksheets, listening to abook on tape, lining up, saying the “Pledge of Allegiance,” asking for help or information,following directions, and zipping up your jacket— represent the 11 items all 7 preserviceteachers categorized as not play. Items 8 through 41 represent the items that the preserviceteachers categorized differently.

Item Play Middle Not play

1. Play-doh 7 0 02. Water/sand table 7 0 03. Traditional board games 7 0 04. Dress-up clothes 7 0 05. Pretending to be a superhero 7 0 06. Kickball 7 0 07. Tag 7 0 08. Participating in cops and robbers where the

participants pretend to shoot one another6 1 0

9. Pretending to be a character from a violentmovie

6 1 0

10. Jigsaw puzzles 6 1 011. Art center 6 0 112. House center 6 0 113. Riding a tricycle in physical education 6 0 114. Music center 5 1 115. Math games 5 0 216. While pretending to play school, the pretend

teacher calls the pretend student “stupid” andthe student begins to cry

5 0 2

17. Painting 4 2 118. Playing a musical instrument in music class 4 1 219. Telling a classmate they cannot join a board

game that’s in progress4 1 2

20. Games that teach children literacy skills 4 0 321. Pretending to be George Washington 4 0 322. Arguing about who gets to be the baby in the

house center3 3 1

23. Dictating a story and acting it out as a class 3 1 324. Singing the ABCs 3 0 425. Eating lunch 3 0 426. Drawing a picture in art class 2 2 3

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013


Item Play Middle Not play

27. Science center 2 0 528. Feeding the classroom pet 2 0 529. Singing “You’re a Grand Old Flag” 2 0 530. Creating a science experiment 1 2 431. Asking if you can have a turn on the swings 1 1 532. Talking with a classmate about a pair of

scissors1 0 6

33. Math center 1 0 634. Figuring out how to join a group already busy

w/an activity0 2 5

35. Transitioning from one activity to another 0 1 636. Flashcards 0 1 637. Cleaning up the classroom 0 1 638. Reading center 0 1 639. Writing center 0 1 640. Writing a story 0 1 641. Cutting out magazine pictures that begin with

the letter “B”0 1 6

42. Writing the ABCs 0 0 743. Listening to the teacher read a story 0 0 744. Reading independently 0 0 745. Calendar time 0 0 746. Math worksheets 0 0 747. Listening to a book on tape 0 0 748. Lining up 0 0 749. Saying the “Pledge of Allegiance” 0 0 750. Asking for help or information 0 0 751. Following directions 0 0 752. Zipping up your jacket 0 0 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt A

lliso

n U

nive

rsity

0L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

34 2

9 A

pril

2013

the multiple meanings of play: exploring preservice teachers' beliefs about a central element...

Documents