Señalización Vertical

By reviewing the literature concerning teachers’ perceptions of play, it appears that in general, preschool teachers regard play as a valuable activity, which is not only fun but full of opportunities for children’s learning and development. For instance, by interviewing nine English reception class teachers on their thinking of teaching through play, Bennett et al.’s study (1997) indicated that the teachers strongly value children’s play in their early development. They see play as a vehicle for learning through which children develop their self-confidence, motivation, self-esteem, a positive self-concept and a developmental appropriate learning method in which children interact with others on their own level and express their emotional, intellectual and social needs (p.33). Through a survey of 221 preschool and kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about children’s play in Ghana, Dako-Gyeke (2009) revealed that both preschool and kindergarten teachers in her study consider that play is a pleasurable and important activity with many learning and development benefits for children. Although teachers describe play differently, the characteristics of play they portray in their definitions are more similar than different, and no statistically significant differences in teachers’ beliefs of play have been found when comparing their school level of teaching, years of teaching experience, and child development courses they have taken. After interviewing 30 preschool teachers, Badzis (2003) found that many Malaysian preschool teachers cannot express clearly the exact learning outcome brought by play to children in class teaching practice. In spite of recognizing the value, significance and role of play in children’s development, there is always a notable difference in “their understanding between

30

the contribution of play to child development and play in relation to educational development of the children in classroom practice” (p.120). Papatheodorou’ study (2010) indicated that teachers not only see play as an important means for children’s learning and development, but also consider it as a positive way for them to “identify and determine a child’s current level of learning and development, recognize her or his potential for learning and development, identify the skills that the child needs to reach that potential, and determine the support required from adults and peers” (p.263).

Rogers and Evans (2008) noted that “to conceptualize play in early childhood education---as the free and expressive activity of the young, as a purposeful and instrumental activity, as a mechanism of cognitive development, or as a tool for learning in school (and these are not mutually exclusive categories) --- the division between play and work is omnipresent” (p.14). Evidence from research shows that binary constructions of play and work can be seen from early childhood teachers’ attitude and practice. According to Rogers’ research (2000), the teachers of England reception classes in her study perceive work as the polar opposite of play. Wood and Attfield (2005) also found that in the pre-school phase, play can be seen as preparatory to ‘real’ learning in ‘big school’ and not be taken as serious as work by parents. Some teachers believe that “work is the serious, rational business of life, while play is for leisure and fun” (Wood & Attfield, 2005, p.10). Ahn (2008) conducted a research on the play concept of ten Korean pre-service kindergarten teachers who enrolled in the Department of Early Childhood Education in a Korean teacher educational college. Through both individual and group interviews, she found that Korean pre-service kindergarten teachers have a conceptual conflict in the perceptions of general play and educational play. In her research, general play is considered by pre-service kindergarten teachers as the opposite concept to work or study, it is a fun, enjoyable, and spontaneous activity that children engaged in without concern for a specific outcome, while educational play is regarded as an ironical concept, since Korean pre-service kindergarten teachers think that learning occurs through working, not playing. Although teachers are trained by the teacher education program to teach children through play, they prefer a structured and pre-planned program for young children to a play-oriented program in reality for they do not believe the effect brought out

31

by play.

However, Frost et al. (2005) noted that children have their own ideas about the distinctions between work and play. Wood and Attfield (2005) found that children associate work with teacher-directed activity and some activities in which they are required to sit still. When they engaged in activities with teachers’ instructions, children consider it as work; but when they are voluntarily selecting and directing their activities by themselves, they consider it to be play (Holmes, 1999; King, 1979). The pleasure derived from the activity is not necessarily an index of the difference between play and work (Cooney et al., 2000). Interestingly, Cooney et al. (2000) indicated that the children and teachers in their study show an unclear boundary between play and work. They express difficulty when categorizing their daily classroom activities as play or work. It seems that play and work are blurred from their perspectives.

Evidence from research reveals that variability exists in the beliefs of play in different cultures (Roopnarine, 2011). For example, Wu and Rao (2011) compared German and Chinese early childhood teachers’ perceptions of play, learning and children’s play behaviours. They found that German teachers distinguish free play and directed activities clearly, and they value free-play highly. The teachers perceive free play as children’s self-learning without teachers’ disturbing. While Chinese teachers do not consider children’s play as free play, they always see play in relation to other games or academic activities, and they emphasize teachers’ instruction in play to children’s learning outcomes. Although the understanding of the value of play varies slightly across ethnic groups in United States, Canadian, European and Australian society which “becoming increasingly diverse”, from the research conducted in those developed countries, it seems that “adults from European and European-heritage cultural group strongly endorse the belief that play assumes a significant role in children’s intellectual and social development”. In contrast, “in those non-European-heritage cultures, adults have the least favorable attitudes towards play” (Roopnarine, 2011, p.22). Research shows that Asian American parents emphasize more on the importance of learning compared to European American parents who stressed more on

32

the value of play to children’s cognitive and individual development. Asian American parents believe that play is more beneficial to children’s physical and social development than European American parents do (Farver et al.,1995).

Compared to the great number of research projects conducted in Europe and North America, very few studies have been carried out in China. Cheng (2000) employed a qualitative research method to explore a Taiwanese kindergarten teacher’s perception of children’s play. After observing and interviewing a Taiwanese kindergarten teacher---Mei-Ling, she revealed that Mei-Ling’s perception of children’s play contains the following three aspects: firstly, she views play as a means for improving children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development. Secondly, according to Mei-Ling, child-directed play approach is the best way to meet individual needs and to provide an environment where children feel emotionally secure. Thirdly, child-directed play also provides good opportunities for teacher-child interactions, peer guidance, and autonomous learning. Shen (2008) also carried out a qualitative case study on a group of teachers in a Taiwan public kindergarten to find out their understanding of the meanings of children’s play and their strategies to apply play in a school practice. By interviewing the participant teachers which consist of seven experienced teachers and four student-teachers, she discovered that all these teachers held a positive view of children’s play, and agree upon the value of play in childhood development and learning. When conceptualizing play, teachers all made clear distinctions between play and work. Most of the teachers indicated that play carries no specific purpose and clearly differs from work because it is a matter of free choice. Shen (2008) found that “one and the same activity that was described as work in one classroom was considered play in another” (p.235).In addition, Rao and Li (2009) conducted a case study on teachers’ beliefs and practices relate to play and learning in Chinese kindergartens in Shenzhen. After observing children’s activities in kindergarten and interviewing their teachers and parents individually, they found that the kindergarten teachers and parents believed that the relationship between play and learning is very close, and they regarded play as the main vehicle for learning. They emphasized children “playing to learn” (p.114).

33

In China, the boundary between play and work also is evident in teachers’ and parents’ perceptions. Cheng and Stimpson (2004) found that play is subtly treated by Hong Kong kindergarten teachers as they believe free play with no learning intentions. It is a reward or a time for the children to relax after their work. It seems that the teachers in their study are unaware of the opportunities for learning embedded in play, and do not take up opportunities to scaffold children’s learning during play. In a study of young children’s and their families’ and teachers’ attitudes to play in China, Sha (1998) discovered that participants consider play separately from learning, they see play as a recreational rather than learning experience and treat play as a basic way of relaxation and rest beyond learning time. Dong (2009) also pointed out that Chinese parents tend to view play as a waste of time when more important ‘work’, which implies memorizing of knowledge and parroting of skills, could be done.

The literature implies that the concepts of play and work are constructed differently by early childhood practitioners and children in both European cultures and Chinese early childhood education. Teachers’ view of play and work reflect their professional knowledge. However, although this rhetoric of play shares some similar meaning, the way in which play is implemented and permeated into teachers’ provision of time, space and materials may differ. This point needs further exploration.

By reviewing the relevant literature, play emerged as an essential activity of childhood education, which was of great importance to children’s physical, psychological, cognitive, social and emotional development, well-being and overall progression. Practitioners’ understanding of the meaning and value of play to young children’s development is crucial, as there is “a strong relationship between teachers’ educational beliefs and their planning, instructional decisions and classroom practices” (Pajares, 1992, p. 326). Teachers’ beliefs of play may directly impact on the implementation of play and influence children’s learning and development in practice. However, the literature suggests that play has been understood differently within different social and cultural contexts in terms of its function and value to children’s development and its relation with learning. For example, some educators from European society tend to emphasize that play promotes children’s social development while

34

other practitioners from China are more likely to link play with physical development. As children’s play varies according to economic, social and cultural contexts, different communities value and provide opportunities for children differently (Wood & Attfield, 2005; GÖncÜ & Gaskins, 2006; Rogers & Evans, 2008). The meaning of play is culturally situated, and tends to reflect what is valued within cultural communities (James, 1998, Roopnarine, 2011; Gaskins et al., 2006). It makes little sense to try and understand play without “reference to the context in which it occurs” and without consideration of “the social interactions and expectations that have influenced it” (Dockett & Fleer, 2002, p.79). Thus, an understanding of play should take the specific social and cultural dimensions into account (Fleer, 2009). Therefore, this motivates the current study to locate play in a Chinese context, to understand the meaning of play of Chinese kindergarten teachers.