# data[].attributes.headline
Osgood, J. and de Rijke, V. eds., 2025. Postdevelopmental Approaches to Play. Bloomsbury Publishing.

# data[].attributes.subject
Osgood, J. and de Rijke, V. eds., 2025. Postdevelopmental Approaches to Play. Bloomsbury Publishing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This book deconstructs traditional developmentalist logic around play and explores play in the broadest sense. It deconstructs traditional developmentalist logi…

# data[].attributes.headline
Liu, C., Chen, Q., Zhang, L. and Lin, A.M., 2025. Play–literacy interface in childhood education: Across the scales of time and space. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, p.14639491241311650.

# data[].attributes.subject
Liu, C., Chen, Q., Zhang, L. and Lin, A.M., 2025. Play–literacy interface in childhood education: Across the scales of time and space. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, p.14639491241311650.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Play–literacy interface in childhood education: Across the scales of time and space - Chunhong Liu, Qinghua Chen, Limin Zhang, Angel M. Y. Lin, 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Play has been widely examined and viewed as an effective pedagogy to promote children’s literacy development. While current research has identified various bene…

# data[].attributes.headline
Evans, K., 2025. Bringing matter, to matter:‘Wild ideas’ about ‘readiness’ in the transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to the Key Stage 1 National Curriculum in England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, p.14639491251313823.

# data[].attributes.subject
Evans, K., 2025. Bringing matter, to matter:‘Wild ideas’ about ‘readiness’ in the transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to the Key Stage 1 National Curriculum in England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, p.14639491251313823.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bringing matter, to matter: ‘Wild ideas’ about ‘readiness’ in the transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to the Key Stage 1 National Curriculum in England - Katherine Evans, 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
‘Readiness’ and transition are topics of ongoing debate in relation to early childhood education. Critiques of schoolification and the impact of a ’school-readi…

# data[].attributes.headline
Lush, L., 2025. How does achievement exist? Putting achievement sous rature and inviting new questions about teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, p.14639491241311654.

# data[].attributes.subject
Lush, L., 2025. How does achievement exist? Putting achievement sous rature and inviting new questions about teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, p.14639491241311654.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How does achievement exist? Putting achievementsous rature and inviting new questions about teaching and learning - Lindsey Lush, 2025

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schooling today is steeped in a material-discursive community of achievement. Its ubiquity has become such that terms to qualify and quantify learning through a…

# data[].attributes.headline
Ward, K.S., 2025. Desire and agency: posthuman perspectives of becoming a ‘rebel teacher’on a wounded planet. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, pp.1-18.

# data[].attributes.subject
Ward, K.S., 2025. Desire and agency: posthuman perspectives of becoming a ‘rebel teacher’on a wounded planet. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, pp.1-18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Desire and agency: posthuman perspectives of becoming a ‘rebel teacher’ on a wounded planet - Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This paper tells the story of my journey as a teacher and my attempts to understand and shape my education for sustainability practices over a period of 40 years. It is also an attempt to speak to younger teachers and to exemplify a process of becoming an educator that may be useful for others in navigating the urgent need to transform teaching to respond to the current climate crisis. Using autoethnography, this paper reflects on the process of becoming a ‘rebel-teacher’ on a wounded planet. I use Deleuzian concepts of desire, becoming and multiplicities and Barads posthumanist concepts of agential realism and diffraction, interpreting key moments in time defining my engagement with the natural world through arts-based pedagogies, outdoor education, curriculum development and research. I trace a progression from anthropocentric theories and pedagogical practice related to sustainability, to understanding through diffractive posthumanist perspectives. I situate these reflections beginning in the 1980s when environmental concerns were filtering into education in Australia, to the present time where the climate crisis demands all educators take a rebel stance to imbue pedagogy with approaches for ameliorating and living with climate change. I posit that the arts, creative curriculum and posthumanist viewing of the world can effect an activist attitude, highlighting place-based perspectives and offering the possibility for considered decisions on action toward education for regenerative living.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elkin Postila, T. and Eriksson, C., 2025. Research prACTivisms–a methodology for a-more-than-educational-academic knowledge production. Gender and Education, 37(1), pp.49-64.

# data[].attributes.subject
Elkin Postila, T. and Eriksson, C., 2025. Research prACTivisms–a methodology for a-more-than-educational-academic knowledge production. Gender and Education, 37(1), pp.49-64.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mardell, B., Ryan, J., Krechevsky, M., Baker, M., Schulz, S. and Liu-Constant, Y., 2023. A pedagogy of play: Supporting playful learning in classrooms and schools. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Mardell, B., Ryan, J., Krechevsky, M., Baker, M., Schulz, S. and Liu-Constant, Y., 2023. A pedagogy of play: Supporting playful learning in classrooms and schools. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Resource Summary

Play is at the heart of childhood. Through play, children learn how to collaborate, how to negotiate rules and relationships, and how to imagine and create. They learn to find and solve problems, think flexibly and critically, and communicate effectively. This book, written by researchers at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, draws on cross-cultural, empirical research to explore what it means to embrace play as a core part of learning in school. The authors address three questions: Why do educators need a pedagogy of play? What does playful learning in schools look and feel like? and How can educators promote playful learning? The book includes practices and strategies from the classroom to the staffroom, eight pictures of classroom practice from four countries, and 18 tools for teachers, school leaders, and professional development providers to support playful learning across content areas and age groups.

You can access a free PDF of the book on the right. You can also purchase a physical copy of the book via the Lulu webstore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Pedagogy of Play: Supporting playful learning in classrooms and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Play is at the heart of childhood. Through play, children learn how to collaborate, how to negotiate rules and relationships, and how to imagine and create. They learn to find and solve problems, think flexibly and critically, and communicate effectively.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shannon, D. B., & Hackett, A. (2023). Opaque reciprocity: or theorising Glissant’s ‘right to opacity’ as a communication and language praxis in early childhood education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 45(1), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2023.2273336

# data[].attributes.subject
Shannon, D. B., & Hackett, A. (2023). Opaque reciprocity: or theorising Glissant’s ‘right to opacity’ as a communication and language praxis in early childhood education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 45(1), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2023.2273336

# data[].attributes.headline
Flewitt, Rosie, El Gemayel, Sandra , Arnott, Lorna, Gillen, Julia, Goodall, Janet, Winter, Karen and Dalziell, Andy (2024) Toddlers, Tech and Talk: summary report. Project Report. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester 

# data[].attributes.subject
Flewitt, Rosie, El Gemayel, Sandra , Arnott, Lorna, Gillen, Julia, Goodall, Janet, Winter, Karen and Dalziell, Andy (2024) Toddlers, Tech and Talk: summary report. Project Report. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Toddlers, Tech and Talk is an ESRC-funded project about 0-3-year-old children’s language and literacy learning at home in a digital age (2022-2024). This is the only contemporary project reporting in depth and at scale on how digital technologies intersect with the home lives of very young children and their families across the UK. The findings from this study are rich in their breadth and depth. This summary report introduces some of the main themes that we have identified, along with ‘bitesize’ snippets of data that convey a flavour of our findings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kaukko, M., Haswell, N., Wilkinson, J. (2024). Exploring “Living Well” Through Children’s Play. In: Reimer, K.E., Kaukko, M., Windsor, S., Kemmis, S., Mahon, K. (eds) Living Well in a World Worth Living in for All. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1848-1_7 

# data[].attributes.subject
Kaukko, M., Haswell, N., Wilkinson, J. (2024). Exploring “Living Well” Through Children’s Play. In: Reimer, K.E., Kaukko, M., Windsor, S., Kemmis, S., Mahon, K. (eds) Living Well in a World Worth Living in for All. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1848-1_7 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The word school derives from the Greek word scholē (σχολή), meaning "free time" and a source of knowledge and experience available as a "common good" (Masschelein & Simons, 2013). "Common good" is at the heart of the double purpose of education discussed in this book, that is, to enable learners to live well in and help create a world worth living in for all. However, the role of free time as part of this purpose is often paid little attention. This chapter considers what a world worth living in for all might look like from the point of view of young migrant and refugee background school students, and how the practices of living well in that world may be seen to emerge and be shaped by their free play at school.

Our study draws from a larger Finnish-Australian research project exploring the broad questions of what educational "success" looks like from the point of view of children from refugee backgrounds, and how schools can best support these students. Our findings from that project have indicated that the feeling of success may arise from the resourcefulness of children in diverse conditions (Kaukko & Wilkinson, 2020); that play creates important affordances for learning to work together (Kaukko et al., 2022b), and that teachers showing care and love are crucial in assisting students to settle and feel safe especially in the early stages of their settlement (Kaukko et al. 2021). Our previous findings have also highlighted the equally crucial role that educational leaders play in ensuring that the school climate is based on principles of social justice and equity and that teachers have the opportunities and support to meet the needs of students from migrant and refugee backgrounds (Wilkinson & Kaukko, 2020). This is in line with other research, showing that the initial years of settlement after migration are decisive factors in refugee students' wellbeing and long-term settlement (Dryden-Peterson, 2016; McIntyre & Abrams, 2020) and that, during this time, schools are crucial sites that can help students feel safe and settled (Kohli, 2011). The crucial importance of schools is not limited to refugee students' inclusion and settlement but applies to other migrant students as well (Kaukko et al., 2022a, b). As our project grew and matured, we noticed that some parts of the study would benefit from extending the invitation to all migrant children, not only refugees. This was important especially when we focused on something that can be inclusive by nature, like play.

In this chapter, we explore how children engage in free play at school in Australia and Finland and consider the insights this play might give into the double purpose of education. In line with the future focus of this volume, we consider how analysing the imagined worlds children create in their play can help us understand how children may emerge into, and co-construct, a real-world worth living in. In addition, we consider how schools may better guide students towards living well in the present by providing children with opportunities to play. As children play, they not only create, simulate, and negotiate between themselves an imagined, future-oriented world worth living in for all, but also, through the real collaboration, empathy and care they develop and practise together, they play a part in actually bringing that world into being. This is not all that play can do, but it highlights the importance of broadening our analytical focus from formal practices of education to also encompass times when children are let be.

Two groups of school students, one in Australia (13 children between the ages 6-9) and one in Finland (eight children of 7-9 years of age), documented their school lives wearing chest-mounted action cameras and later co-analysed some of the video recordings with us. When the participating students were let be at school, that is, when they had fairly unstructured free time there, they spent much of it in nature areas in the school premises, or around the schools when accompanied by supervising teachers. The students' activities in these outside spaces included smashing rocks, jumping around on boulders, hiding in bushes, climbing in trees, gathering natural materials for building, and playing hide and seek.

For this chapter, we analysed one episode of Finnish students' free play and one episode of Australian students' free play. In the Australian episode, a group of students was engaged in imaginary play involving the preparation of a communal meal, using leaves and other natural material. In the Finnish episode, a class of newly arrived migrant children were taken on an outing by their teacher to a lake near the school, accompanied by two of the authors of this chapter (Mervi and Nick). At the beach, the students built sand houses for plastic toy animals that the teacher had brought along, as well as for a ladybug encountered during their play. Focusing on such a small fraction of the data comes with limitations: we cannot make any generalisable arguments about how children's play unfolds. Yet on the other hand it allows us to engage with play in all its complexity and capture the "happeningness" (Kemmis et al., 2014, 29) of practices in play. Our arguments, however, are supported by our interpretation of the extensive overall body of data. While engaged in seemingly simple play activities, the children across the whole body of data had rich discussions about themes such as how to be fair to others, how to include other children in play activities, and how to get things done together. In their actions, they both simulated and enacted situations which were inclusive and sensitive to the diversity of students. In many ways, they played, and lived, a world worth living in as they imagined it.

Although there was very little direct adult interference in the documented play, these play practices did not emerge coincidentally. Enabling them required purposefully planned cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements orchestrated by educators, which, crucially, left room for children to "just be kids". In the following pages, we explore these various arrangements and how they served to enable and guide students' free play practices towards the original purpose of education, a purpose that at times lies in stark contrast with some of the recent test-driven tendencies of education in both Australia and Finland.

The Purpose of Education

Contemporary schooling, with its varying levels of standardised testing, can be seen as having the narrow purpose of equipping students with skills and temperaments to function within prevailing socio-economic systems (Kemmis & Edwards-Groves, 2018). Education, on the other hand, can be seen as having a deeper moral purpose. Kemmis et al. ( 2014) define education as the

process by which children, young people, and adults are initiated into forms of understanding, modes of action, and ways of relating to one another and the world that foster (respectively) individual and collective self-expression, individual and collective self-development, and individual and collective self-determination and that are, in these senses, oriented towards the good for each person and the good for humankind". (p. 26)

By this definition, education happens in practices, that is, in the present moment, but it also focuses on the future: the future good for each person, the future good for humankind and, we would like to add (see Kaukko et al., 2021), the future good for all the life on our shared planet. The moral task of education then, as described by Kemmis and Edwards-Groves ( 2018), consists of five facets: environmental, economic, social, cultural, and personal, each of which impart skills and knowledge with which to create conditions for, and to practise living well in, a world that continues to be worth living in for the next generations too.

Play can be a set of practices which invites children to imagine a better future. On the other hand, play can also sometimes be cruel, mean, racist, sexist, and reproduce the worst aspects of society. Our attempt is not to romanticise play as simply "good", but in this chapter, our focus is on what play can say about living well together. Play can have varying importance in education, depending on the school system and the age of the students. At best, play can be "an inherently enjoyable activity and an important process through which children learn about themselves, others, and the world around them" (Austin et al., 2016, p. 119). It can appear anywhere and everywhere, yet play is also informed and influenced by the material arrangements surrounding it. Both episodes selected for this chapter take place outdoors in natural or semi-natural environments. In the Finnish example, it was because the children were taken to a lakeside beach surrounded by forest. In the Australian example, children chose to play in particularly leafy parts of their school's large natural premises-an environment which had been especially crafted for the children by the school, given many of them lived in apartments with no outside space to play. Children's play studies (Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Wake & Birdsall, 2016) suggest that particular qualities of natural spaces, including their mystery and complexity, make them preferred sites of play for children. Research has highlighted extremely positive effects of children's nature-based play on whatever is measured, be it students' physical activity outcomes, cognitive behaviours, learning, mental health, or wellbeing (Dankiw et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2022; Wake & Birdsall, 2016). Ernst and Burcak ( 2019) argue that free play in natural settings develops skills and attitudes relevant to sustainability, such as curiosity, creative thinking and resilience. Wake and Birdsall ( 2016) argue that well-planned and collaboratively designed school gardens offer students opportunities to experience nature while promoting social inclusivity and healthy lifestyles.

Research on play is diverse in its quality, contexts, methods, scope, and, importantly, the extent to which it can come to convincing conclusions. Play is hard to understand from the outsider's perspective and when play can be researched, the act of exploring it may limit the extent to which the play continues unchanged and "free". Nevertheless, childhood researchers continue to call for more research on play (Parker et al., 2022), and few educators would doubt its importance. Many also agree that schools, especially those in urban and/or low socio-economic areas, should invest more in creating opportunities for children's free play in safe and stimulating environments.

Acknowledging the important benefits and purposes of children's play as well as the challenges involved in researching it, we focus on children's play as an aspect of the original purpose of schooling, to be both a source of free time and of knowledge and experience available as a "common good". In studying episodes of children's play, we therefore approach play as a window through which to investigate how children, on their own terms yet guided by the cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements of schooling, come to understand, negotiate and live well in a world worth living in for all. In the following section, we discuss the contexts, participants, and methodology of our study.

Context and Participants

The data used in this chapter were collected by students who studied in public primary schools located in the outskirts of the large city of Melbourne, Australia and a city in Finland. The Australian school is a middle-sized (< 400 students), public primary school where approximately 90% of the students speak English as an additional language and about 25% of the students are from different refugee backgrounds. The Finnish school is a large (> 1500 students) public comprehensive school, including classes from early childhood education to upper secondary school. The students we observed in both countries were 6-9 years of age. They all had migrant backgrounds and some came from refugee backgrounds.

The Australian school follows the Victorian Curriculum F-10 (Foundation year to Year 10), which sets out what Australian students should learn during their first eleven years of schooling. This curriculum, incorporating the Australian Curriculum and Victorian priorities and standards, claims to outline the common set of knowledge and skills required by students for life-long learning, social development, and active and informed citizenship (VCAA, 2022). The Finnish school follows the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (EDUFI 2014), which, like the Australian curriculum, sets the standards for learning in grades 1-9, but does so in a very broad manner. The students we observed in the Finnish school were in a preparatory class for newly arrived migrant students, meaning that in addition to the Finnish National Core Curriculum, they followed a Preparatory Education Curriculum. The main focus of preparatory education in Finland is on learning Finnish language and becoming familiar with the Finnish school system, through individual education plans and more flexibility in the curriculum.

Neither the Victorian Curriculum F-10, the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education nor the Finnish Curriculum for Preparatory Education have a particular focus on play. They acknowledge play as a teaching practice (VCAA, 2022) and an inquiry method, especially for young learners (EDUFI, 2014; VCAA, 2022) but not as a priority or as a cross-curricular theme. However, there is an increasing awareness in both Australia and Finland that play promotes key skills and knowledge that school systems should provide in better ways. This awareness was reflected in the Australian case study school's emphasis on play as a crucial form of pedagogy (Kaukko et al, 2022b).

Methods

The nature of children's play, with its imaginative dimensions and its child-exclusivity, makes it difficult to research, yet some elements of play can be comprehensible from the outside (Kaukko et al., 2022b). For our broader study, we gathered audio-visual data consisting of videos filmed by students themselves as they participated in day-to-day school activities. In each country, the schoolteacher helped us select students to participate. All the Australian students were from different migrant backgrounds, with some from refugee backgrounds, but studying in the mainstream education system. The Finnish group consisted of eight students who were studying in a preparatory class before moving into mainstream primary school classes1. After giving consent to participate and be filmed, and after being introduced to the aims of the study, the students wore chest-mounted action cameras for approximately 90 min per day, filming their ordinary school activities. The groups followed their normal schedules during the filming periods, meaning that students' videos captured a mix of time spent inside, outside, in structured lessons and in unstructured free time such as lunch breaks or outings. When students returned their camera after each filming session, we asked them a series of questions about their activities and experiences. The questions varied slightly depending on the group. The first question, "Did you do something that made you feel successful?", was simplified as needed, which sometimes led the students to mention any events that made them feel good at school. Follow-up questions elaborated on the role of other people, and things around them, in the chosen moments. School observations, as well as interviews with teachers and school leaders, complemented the data collected with children.

Our initial interest was in moments students identified as making them feel successful, where success was defined in the broadest sense of encompassing all kinds of academic, social, and emotional flourishing. However, as we became more familiar with the video data, we realised that much could also be found outside of the chosen moments. This led us to new lines of inquiry, including the current study described in this chapter. Analysing broader swathes of the video material, we identified the two particular play episodes described above and deconstructed the sequences of play practices within them. Both episodes were filmed simultaneously by two or more children who were involved in the same play projects. We analysed these sequences through the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014), paying attention to the sayings, doings and relatings evident in the videos, as well as the broader cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements of the site (for a more detailed description of our analysis methods, see (Kaukko et al., 2022b). This chapter draws mostly on the analysis of this video data. We use observational notes and interview data with children and teachers as background data, as needed.

Analysing Changing Practices of Imaginary Play

Play is simultaneously imagined and unpredictable. The same can be said about the future. The flow of play episodes, like the flow of the present world into the future, is shaped by the changing, adding or disappearing of elements within them. Play changes as new materials, activities, participants, or ideas are introduced or removed, or combined in new ways. A common way to try to understand the meaning of a practice is to focus on the practitioner's words. In play, however, and especially in a multilingual group's play, words offer only a partial understanding. The episodes we analysed were full of moments in which children applied different or contradictory meanings to their roles and actions when something was not understood in the same way by the players. We also saw the meaning of play practices affirmed and/or disputed by other children who joined the play. To analyse play, we therefore considered not only what the children did, but also how they adjusted their actions to shifting understandings of what the play required at any given moment.

For the current study, the multilinguality of the video data and our research group gave us an opportunity to be playful with our analysis method. The main language used by students and teachers in the Finnish episode was Finnish, while in the Australian video, the main language used by students was Burmese. In both episodes, some students occasionally mixed these languages with English phrases. While all three members of our research group speak English, two also speak Finnish (Mervi and Nick) and none speak Burmese. This variation in language gave us the opportunity, as a group, to analyse students' play practices firstly by focusing on what was revealed without words, i.e. what the children seemed to be doing, how they related to one another, and what they seemed to be expressing based on the tone of the voice or body language. Jane, who could not understand Finnish or Burmese, commenced this non-verbal analysis on both the Finnish and Australian episodes, followed by Mervi and Nick, who made a similar non-verbal analysis of the Australian video. After this, we obtained an English-translated transcription of the Australian episode, allowing us all to reanalyse the episode in terms of the meanings that the students' words provided. At the same time, Mervi and Nick analysed the Finnish episode with an understanding of the students' speech and compared their comprehensive analyses to Jane's non-verbal analysis.

In the next section, we give a more detailed overview of the episodes in both countries, then zoom in to the children's doings, relatings, and sayings, as well as the arrangements that held them in place. We do this while acknowledging that the changing and unpredictable nature of play makes it vulnerable to misinterpretation.

Field Trip to a Finnish Lakeside Forest

The Finnish data present a school class trip to a nearby beach in late May, just before the summer holiday. The setting is a beautiful natural lakeside environment, and the filming takes place on a pleasant sunny day. The sky is clear, but we can tell that the weather is cool, as the children are wearing jackets and woollen gloves. We can see children being led by their teacher through native forests with pine trees, untended public land and finally arriving at a natural beach site. We can see a changeroom and a rubbish bin behind the beach and apartment blocks slightly further away, indicating the beach is public and urban. There are no other people on the beach when the group arrives. Children wander freely and without rush, and there seem to be no adults dictating their movements.

In this episode, the main activity the children are engaged in is building sand houses for toy animals that the teacher brought along to the beach. Hence, the play was partially initiated by adults as they brought the toy animals, but it was up to the children to decide to integrate the toy animals into the play. We view this episode from the chest-mounted camera of a girl who shapes the damp sand into walls with her gloved hands. Nearby, we can see and hear another girl and boy building their own sand house in similar ways. Occasionally, we see them run together to a nearby patch of forest, gathering natural materials such as flowers, grass, and seeds to be brought back to the sand house. A little later in the video, a fourth important participant is brought into their activity: A ladybug that was found by one of the girls in the forest while collecting materials.

Pretend-Cooking at an Australian School Yard

The Australian play episode occurs on a school playground. The weather here is also sunny and clear. Children are wearing a mix of summer and winter uniforms with some jackets. Girls have leggings underneath their dresses so they can play physically more easily. We can see low school buildings, trees of different sizes, bushes and a variety of different natural and artificial objects lying around. There are natural materials, such as logs, that look purposefully trimmed and placed as play equipment. Other artificial play equipment includes a green metal climbing frame, some swings, and smaller objects such as shovels, pots, and pans. There is a large wooden table situated in the corner of the playground, nestled within a ring of trees and leafy bushes. The ground is covered with wood chips.

In this episode, the main play activity is the simulated preparation and cooking of a meal. We see the episode from the chest-mounted camera of a girl who carries a metal cooking pot to a group of other girls sitting and standing at the wooden table. On the table, various objects have been neatly arranged; there is a tablecloth, a cushion, a metal muffin tray, and some stacked plastic pots. Throughout the episode, we see the girls going back and forth from the table, fetching natural materials from the surrounding ground, bushes, and trees, and placing them in the cooking pot and muffin tray. When one girl cannot reach the seedpods or nuts higher up in the bushes, the other girls lift her up.

Doings Consisting of Purposeful Activities Aiming for a Shared Play

In both the Finnish and Australian play episodes, the doings of the participants seem purposeful and collaborative and targeted towards a commonly agreed aim: building sand houses in Finland and preparing a pretend-dinner in Australia. In the Finnish episode, we see the children running to the forest, collecting building materials such as flowers, twigs, and grass. We see them adding these materials as decorative or functional features of their sand houses or storing them in some of the sand rooms, and we also see them sharing materials and helping each other build. Doings in both episodes show organisation, deliberation, and precision. In the Australian episode, the children are neatly sorting and storing seeds, leaves, and branches in the muffin tray cups, as well as carefully crushing them with a rock. Similarly, in the Finnish episode, we see the children handling their gathered forest materials with care and aesthetic consideration while building and decorating their sand houses. In both cases, the children seemingly strive to make their play environments both beautiful and functional, mimicking practices that would apply to real homes as well.

Play practices have the power to transform and acquire different meanings in the middle of an activity (see Kaukko et al., 2022b). These transformations need to be negotiated between participants, so that a shared understanding and agreement of the aims and "rules" of the play remain. What happens in collaborative play opens new possibilities for interpretation, imagination, and narration for the players, which, in turn, leads to new directions for unfolding. An example of negotiation between play participants is seen in the Finnish episode when, in the middle of the house-building activity, one of the girls finds a ladybug. The girl holds it aloft on her finger, calling the other children over to help make a house for it. She handles the creature delicately as she studies it and shows it to the others, who show interest in it. While we hear them negotiate verbally about the "rules" of the play, how to build the ladybug's house and whether it likes eating certain leaves within the house, we also see them negotiate through their doings; adding and arranging their own elements to the house while accepting, adapting, or rejecting elements added by others. Through this multifaceted negotiation of practices, the collaborative play settles into a new direction of flow in which a certain room now represents the ladybug's home, a certain leaf represents its bed, and so on.

This shift in the play's direction seems to happen easily, as the ladybug is an interesting enough element to draw the practitioners' focus away from the previous play practices. As the ladybug is a living object, the children handle it carefully and gently. The children seem to understand that the needs of the ladybug overrule the needs of the inanimate toy animals they had, up to that point, been playing with. We do not wish to make any far-fetched assumptions about why the ladybug receives such a central role in the play. It might be because of its bright colours, its small size, pleasing appearance, or the fact that it does not fly away; the video does not give us answers for that. What we do think is shown by the children's doings in the video, however, is a curiosity and a thoughtful consideration to the safety and wellbeing of this non-human play participant. In another scenario, the ladybug could have been crushed or discarded, either through ignorance of how to handle it or deliberately. Significantly, this consideration of safety and wellbeing emerges both in the simulated play that the children have co-created, for example, with the provision of a home, a bed, and food, and also in the real-world manner in which the children physically handle it.

Built, Found, and Imagined Material-Economic Arrangements of Play

In both episodes, the material-economic arrangements that support the children's play include the natural and built play equipment, as well as the time and space allowed for children to experiment, be creative, and work towards a shared aim. Some of these arrangements were deliberately constructed, enabled, or provided by adults at the schools. From our background research, we know that the adults in both schools had the power to give the children the time to play. Past decisions at the school, district, or national levels have ensured that these school children have resources such as equipment and space to accommodate different types of play. The playground in the Australian episode features a range of objects which might not be found in most school yards, such as baking trays, seat cushions, sheets, buckets, and other containers. These "cooking implements" were complemented by "ingredients" consisting of leaves, nuts, flowers, branches, and rocks available from trees and bushes growing in the playground. Such a set-up is not a coincidence. Rather, it concurs with a broader pedagogical philosophy of the school, centred on play and collaborative learning. The practice architectures that shape play in our videos are part of an ecology of practices that connect up to the teaching, leading, researching, and professional learning practices of the school and its classrooms, not only the outdoor environment. The children learn to be collaborative through how they are taught in the classroom and these practices are amplified and reinforced through the practice architectures of the outdoor environment and its naturalistic setting. In one of the interviews we later made with the school's teaching staff, an educational leader noted that:

Our spaces outside are not just about biodiversity and curriculum, and they're not just about sport and fixed play equipment, and they're not just about safety, they are actually and truly child centred play opportunities, and open ended as much as possible. (Assistant principal, Australia)

Another of the school's educational leaders agreed, stating that:

[The school's play philosophy] is about the play and setting up environments that are diverse - giving children the opportunity to have space and choice in the yard and having the notion that we are not risk averse so kids can climb trees. We don't have yard duty, because yard duty implies a sergeant major is walking around saying don't do that, don't do that. The idea with play support is you go around and you say 'Oh that's interesting what you're doing. I might join in', or 'I don't feel comfortable with that'. (Principal, Australia)

The play episode captured in the Finnish video, on the other hand, took place with almost no ready-brought arrangements apart from the toy animals the teacher had brought along to the beach. The material-economic arrangements were mainly created by the children and were rather modest. With no shovels or other play tools available, the children use their hands, feet and sticks from the forest to build and shape their sand houses. In this case, we see that, in fact, the only material-economic arrangements this Finnish school needed to provide in order to enable play was free time and a safe, natural, and rich environment where children were trusted to collaborate.

Respectful and Trusting Relatings Sustaining the Play

From our observations and interviews with teachers and students in both the Finnish and Australian schools, we know that the children were not instructed to work together. Nevertheless, they do, because playing is most often a social practice. The play practices seen in both episodes include individually performed tasks, such as constructing a wall or sorting materials, yet the mutually agreed project of the play, building houses or cooking a meal, also requires collaborative practices, such as sharing, helping, advising, or praising. These same individual and collaborative requirements of play apply to what these children need to do to realise a future world worth living in. They need to practise working together, finding agreement on shared goals and ways of going about tasks that benefit not only themselves but others as well. Working together requires that the children are competent and know what to expect from one another. This means that there is a certain level of predictability in play, even if play, as a whole, can be full of surprises. Some predictability and agreement of common aims ensure that the required tasks get done and the play is purposeful. Additionally, communality and fairness in play practices sustain the flow of the play and keep the participating group committed.

The collaborative nature of play, and the children's attempts to be fair and just, are clearly illustrated in both episodes. In the Finnish video, one of the male participants comes to a girl's building site, pretending to visit her sand house. He explains that he is bringing materials and offers to help her build. The girl accepts the offer and, looking over at his own house, compliments him on how nice it looks. These kinds of polite exchanges occur throughout the video between the participants themselves, yet also between participants, their toy animals and the ladybug, whose roles the children take in the dialogues.

In the Australian video, we can see three girls collecting "cooking ingredients" from the bushes behind the playground table. One of the girls, who is shorter than the others, indicates that she wants to reach higher up the bush. One of the other girls lifts her up by the legs and keeps her balanced while the shorter girl picks seeds or nuts from the bush. The third girl helps to hoist the small girl up onto the second girl's shoulders. As they work together, they laugh and converse in Burmese. Through the girls' actions alone, we can interpret their intention as to assist the smallest child, and the later translation of their conversation confirmed this. From the translation, we also gain a sense of both the difficulty of the task as well as the care and co-ordination the girls brought to it: "Hold it carefully.... Could you please hold her legs?" Overall, the task seems pleasant, and all seem pleased at the outcome.

Social-Political Arrangements Nurturing Collaboration and Respect

The relatings we see in the play episodes illustrate the children's orientation towards fair play and being just. It is not easy to conclusively pinpoint the origins of the social-political arrangements enabling this orientation. Based on the observations and interviews at both the Finnish and Australian schools, we can assume that such relatings are made possible by a respectful and fair school climate, as well as committed teachers, leaders and other school staff. The Australian school was committed to a whole-school approach and personalised learning (Otero et al., 2011), championing respect and dialogue among students, staff, and families. One of the educational leaders we interviewed explained that respectful relationships within and beyond the school community were a non-negotiable requirement for all staff. They noted that, "We expect you to be part of that making those connections with community and families and the broader community", and that good relationships between staff, students, families, and communities fed into good relationships between the student and learning, and the school and the real world. This is what they call "personalised learning":

[In] personalised learning you use your actual world instead of using a core curriculum which tends to be in so many cases it's all about numeracy and literacy. Well, learning isn't all about numeracy and literacy. They are absolutely crucial parts of the piece but they are not the whole piece. (Principal, Australia)

From our observations, it was clear that this was not merely rhetoric. The entire school staff knew the students' names, family situations, interests, and concerns, and they used every opportunity to link learning to the real worlds of the students. Providing opportunities for different kinds of play was part of this pedagogy.

Building arrangements that enable free, yet collaborative play is an outcome of persistent work. The teacher of the students in the Finnish episode explained that, at the beginning of the year, she could not take her student group outside of the fenced school area, as the children would run away or do something else unexpected. To reach the stage of making a successful and rewarding field trip such as the one we witnessed in the Finnish episode, it took the teacher a full year of building trust, learning to communicate with the multilingual group, and building a safe and welcoming community. These qualities were apparent to us both from the Finnish video material and in our more general observations of the class. Similar qualities were likewise seen in the Australian school, where one of the Australian teachers noted:

You don't play if you're not feeling safe and you have to worry about your belongings, and you have to worry about where people are and you're too traumatised and sad, your play can look very, very different. So, with the evolution of play in our yard, we can actually now say that our children are feeling very safe and happy in our yard, and they trust those things will be there tomorrow. (Leading teacher, Australia)

Children's relatings indicate respect for the teacher, each other, and others' play sites; students are not breaking or stealing materials from others. We note here that this might be a limitation (or a benefit) of our methodology, given that the children's behaviour may have been influenced by their awareness of the cameras and the knowledge that their actions were recorded. However, the video filming period for each student was quite long (one week in Finland, three weeks in Australia) and both examples are from the final days of the filming. It is therefore fair to assume that the children grew used to the cameras and did not constantly think about them.

Sayings with and Without Language

Sayings consist not only of words, but also of elements such as silences, pauses, tones, and gesticulations. Some of the sayings in the Finnish and Australian play episodes can therefore be understood without understanding the children's language. In the videos, we see non-linguistic elements of sayings such as speaking with loud or soft tones, speaking rapidly or slowly, or pointing with their finger to an object. In short, the children in the play episodes are using, in addition to words, a whole range of verbal, tonal, and gestural elements from which an understanding of the children's expressions can be surmised.

In the Finnish video, the children are mostly talking about the sand house activity, narrating their actions, and offering guidance to the others. There are also many small, polite exchanges that are not directed at the play practice per se, but aimed at connecting, supporting, and encouraging each other. In analysing the Australian episode, none of us understood the children's Burmese language, yet its translation did not reveal any great surprises; as in the Finnish episode, the children are narrating their actions, as well as giving short instructions, compliments, or requests to one another: "Put rice, pork, and water in this pot...", "Put vegetables here [in the pot] and then cook", "It's dirty".

When analysing a section of the Finnish video in which one of the girls is poking twigs and grass through a small pile of sand, Jane is not sure what they are for. She does not understand the girl's words, so her guess is that the girl is arranging sticks to light pretend fires in the home. However, with an understanding of the girl's words, Nick's and Mervi's analysis reveals that the pile is going to be a bathroom wall and that the sticks stuck through it are showers. This shows that material-economic arrangements of play, in this case the sticks and grasses, require suitable cultural-discursive arrangements to give them meaning. Only then can their purpose be agreed among the players. We saw this as well in the Australian video analysis, where none of us initially understood what was being talked about or what the exact meaning and purpose of the children's activities were. In the video, it seemed clear that the girls were busy pretend-cooking with nuts, seeds, and other nature elements in a pot. The English translation of the Burmese dialogue, however, revealed that the berries represented rice, and the discussion touched upon the use of rice in their "village". "In our village, there is no rice. We eat only vegetables", said one of the girls, as she added pretend rice in her food. The others continued: "We need to cook rice". It is difficult to say how significant this food selection is to the children's play-cooking. Maybe it refers to the scarcity of a basic food group that the children may have experienced in the past, but we have no information about this. We also cannot say how important the addition of showers is to the children building sand houses. Perhaps knowing these things would not reveal much more about children's ideas of a good life or a world worth living in. Maybe showers and rice were simply parts of their play, enabled by the suitable material-economic arrangements that happened to be available, and the cultural-discursive arrangements that made them acceptable and intelligible in the minds of other players. We do argue, however, that these kinds of nuances are difficult to grasp by observation alone. Trying to analyse these types of episodes in the way we have attempted here helps us as adults, researchers, and educators to step into the shoes of the child who does not speak the language of the other players. Combining non-verbal and verbal analytical approaches illuminated how it might have felt for many of the participants to participate in the play episodes; that is, being an observer or a participant in a social situation without fully or at all understanding the language of communication. Also, these episodes show that through play, children are not just engaged in imaginary situations, but they actively consider what it would be like to live in, and act well in, in scenarios that they might face in future.

Cultural-Discursive Arrangements Enabling Understanding of a Multilingual Group

Sayings are enabled or constrained by the cultural-discursive arrangements existing in the medium of language and in the dimension of semantic space of the play site. These arrangements are the resources that make possible-and comprehensible-the language used in and about play, that is, its sayings. On the other hand, what is being said in these play practices becomes arrangements for other children's sayings. For example, the type of tone a child adopts, the direction of their attention or the body language they use can either invite other children into a conversation or repel them. The Finnish and Australian play episodes consist of language and communication that acknowledges and appreciates the children, their imaginations, and their human and non-human companions.

In the episodes, we analysed for this chapter, teachers and other adults are almost entirely in the background, yet the value and room they give to their students' play is revealed in our broader observations of their classes and in our interviews with them. These types of cultural-discursive arrangements become highlighted especially in multilingual and multicultural play. In communicating with each other, the children in the play episodes used not only body language and gestures, but also languages other than their first language. Nevertheless, throughout the episodes, we see the students using the common languages of Finnish, Burmese, and English confidently and flexibly, combining them on occasion (for example, "I don't have any hakaneula" [Finnish for safety pins]). The fact that the students feel confident and free to blend languages in this way suggests that the cultural-discursive arrangements surrounding the play allow them to be accepted and understood. The combining of languages also changed according to whom the speaking was directed (teacher, students who were fluent in Finnish/English, less-fluent students, or non-human participants), suggesting that the students themselves understood how their language became a cultural-discursive arrangement for others.

Discussion

We cannot say anything definitive about what the children in our research had in mind while they played, but we can say that the world they mimicked in their play showed inclusiveness and equity. Participatory analysis would have helped, and that is what we used when analysing moments which the children had selected as connected with a feeling of success. The data used for this article goes beyond those moments. However, two of the students in the Australian example chose the cooking activity as their moment of success for that day. When Mervi interviewed them, one of them noted that the group conversed in their first language because one of the girls was new to the country and could not yet speak English well. The videos confirm the efforts for inclusivity in, for example, the way the children changed their language to Burmese and when speaking English, they did so in slow, clearer tones, using far more gestures to match the language skills of the receiver. In other words, the welcoming and inclusive nature of the children's practices could be seen in the video data, and the interviews confirmed that this indeed was their intent. The children included the newcoming child in their sayings, doings, and relatings, not by coincidence, but on purpose.

The world imagined by the students and replicated in their play was also equitable, seemingly because that was the only way to keep the play going. Some of the plays in the videos were individual, yet most were based on cooperation. Very rarely was it based on competition. Children strove for shared goals with friends, helping each other by sharing skills, materials, or strength, and also being responsible for, and taking care of others. Considering these inclusive and just elements of play, we argue that increasing the emphasis on play as part of a broader pedagogical philosophy based on building trust, collaboration, and equity in schools can foster children's collaborations in building a world worth living in in their present, partially imagined world and also allow them to develop skills to bring about, and act within, a world worth living in for the future.

We acknowledge that play cannot alone fulfil the educational needs of children or, by itself, teach them to build a world worth living in. We also understand that the purpose of schooling is more than offering children time to "be" and to engage in free play. Schools and education have, fortunately, evolved greatly since the Greek word scholē (σχολή) was originally used. Schooling as "free time" is no longer exclusively for privileged boys to be freed from physical labour; it is now the right of all children and youth. We are therefore not arguing for a reversal of schooling back to some "good old days", or for schools filled with nothing but free play time. Rather, we argue for our current schools to pay closer attention to the importance of play. Play can give experiences of succeeding for children of different abilities, languages, and backgrounds. It can make children feel safe and included. Teachers can build conditions for play, and it does not need grand transformations of our current educational practices. Children play when they are left to be, and their play can at the same time be educative, purposeful, and rewarding. The benefits of play are hard to measure and may therefore be overlooked in crowded curricula and standardised testing. Yet, as we can see in our data and in other play research, play can support a range of knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for a better future.

The process of analysing data without understanding the words was particularly illustrative in terms of how play might appear in the eyes of an observer who would like to enter it without the possibility of understanding the language of its practitioners. Tuning our senses to the non-linguistic dimensions of play practices reminds us that people's realities are lived and shared in ways beyond words and languages. Exploring some of these dimensions through play gives us one more window to investigate living well in a world worth living in for all, as seen by children.

We can go even further and play with the idea of what "play" means. Considered broadly as an element of a good life, playing should not be limited to children. Furthermore, it should encompass more than its most common definitions: playing board games, sports, instruments, etc. Playing as part of living well can consist of having fun with friends, engaging in social interactions, having enjoyable conversation with others, or just any practices that are conducted for the sake of being a human and enjoying life with others. Understood this way, playing is more or less the same as living well and if this playing is inclusive and welcoming to all, the world can be made a little more livable for all.

Acknowledgements

The project has received funding from the Research Council of Finland grant 331029.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Mervi Kaukko & Nick Haswell

Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Jane Wilkinson

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mervi Kaukko .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Kristin Elaine Reimer

Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Mervi Kaukko

University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden

Sally Windsor

School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia

Stephen Kemmis

Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

Kathleen Mahon

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Reprints and permissions

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaukko, M., Haswell, N., Wilkinson, J. (2024). Exploring "Living Well" Through Children's Play. In: Reimer, K.E., Kaukko, M., Windsor, S., Kemmis, S., Mahon, K. (eds) Living Well in a World Worth Living in for All. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1848-1_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1848-1_7

Published:

Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN: 978-981-97-1847-4

Online ISBN: 978-981-97-1848-1

eBook Packages: Education Education (R0)

Get shareable link

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring "Living Well" Through Children's Play

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This chapter considers how "living well in a world worth living in" is imagined, replicated and lived in children's free play. Drawing primarily on video data collected by 21 young migrant and refugee background primary school students in Finland...

# data[].attributes.headline
Toivonen, H. (2024). Embodied with data: Early childhood education and care centre director’s stories about living with datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241266317 

# data[].attributes.subject
Toivonen, H. (2024). Embodied with data: Early childhood education and care centre director’s stories about living with datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241266317 

# data[].attributes.headline
Pierlejewski, M. (2024). Doppelganger as method: A framework for examining datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 322-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273927 

# data[].attributes.subject
Pierlejewski, M. (2024). Doppelganger as method: A framework for examining datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 322-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273927 

# data[].attributes.headline
Roberts-Holmes, G. (2024). Towards an understanding of the political economy of earlychildhood education platforms. Pro Business or Pro Children? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 365-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241280747 

# data[].attributes.subject
Roberts-Holmes, G. (2024). Towards an understanding of the political economy of earlychildhood education platforms. Pro Business or Pro Children? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 365-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241280747 

# data[].attributes.headline
Benerdal, M., & Larsson, M. (2024). Understanding datafication in Swedish ECEC through three evaluation imaginaries. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 304-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273923 

# data[].attributes.subject
Benerdal, M., & Larsson, M. (2024). Understanding datafication in Swedish ECEC through three evaluation imaginaries. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 304-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273923 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding datafication in Swedish ECEC through three evaluation imaginaries - Malin Benerdal, Magnus Larsson, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this paper we explore datafication through a specific kind of evaluative practice in Swedish early childhood education and care (ECEC): the creation of quali…

# data[].attributes.headline
Paananen, M., Archer, N., Albin-Clark, J., Roberts-Holmes, G., Chung, J., & Siippainen, A. (2024). Staying with the trouble of datafication in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 285-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241290587 

# data[].attributes.subject
Paananen, M., Archer, N., Albin-Clark, J., Roberts-Holmes, G., Chung, J., & Siippainen, A. (2024). Staying with the trouble of datafication in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(3), 285-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241290587 

# data[].attributes.headline
Oosterhoff, A., Oenema-Mostert, I., & Minnaert, A. (2020). Constrained or sustained by demands? Perceptions of professional autonomy in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(2), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949120929464

# data[].attributes.subject
Oosterhoff, A., Oenema-Mostert, I., & Minnaert, A. (2020). Constrained or sustained by demands? Perceptions of professional autonomy in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(2), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949120929464

# data[].attributes.headline
Lyons, M.E., 2024. Within-classroom play: Cultivating autonomy, competence, and relatedness during the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(1), pp.155-165. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Lyons, M.E., 2024. Within-classroom play: Cultivating autonomy, competence, and relatedness during the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(1), pp.155-165. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Varella, A., 2024. Exploring and Combating Adultism in Early Childhood Education and Beyond. Taboo: The Journal of Culture & Education, 22(1). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Varella, A., 2024. Exploring and Combating Adultism in Early Childhood Education and Beyond. Taboo: The Journal of Culture & Education, 22(1). 

# data[].attributes.headline
Xu, P. and Ritchie, J., 2024. Te whāriki, citizenship and young children: re-considering the ‘pioneering’pedagogies of early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, pp.1-18. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Xu, P. and Ritchie, J., 2024. Te whāriki, citizenship and young children: re-considering the ‘pioneering’pedagogies of early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, pp.1-18. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Beisly, A., 2024. Exploration and dramatizing: Theoretical foundations for the development of approaches to learning through play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(4), pp.815-824. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Beisly, A., 2024. Exploration and dramatizing: Theoretical foundations for the development of approaches to learning through play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(4), pp.815-824. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploration and Dramatizing: Theoretical Foundations for The Development of Approaches to Learning Through Play - Early Childhood Education Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Approaches to Learning (AtL) is widely included in many state standards for preK, as a process-oriented disposition that describes how children learn. Play is one pedagogical strategy teachers can employ to support the development of AtL. This paper uses Vygotsky’s depiction of two kinds of play, object play and socio-dramatic play, to provide the theoretical framework to articulate the links between play and learning. Exploration, i.e., object play supports children’s curiosity and problem-solving. Sociodramatic play, dramatizing, helps children develop symbolic representation necessary for imagination and creativity. Both kinds of play require intentional teacher structuring and interaction. This paper concludes by presenting ways teachers can encourage object and socio-dramatic play in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aslanian, T.K., Bjerknes, A.L. and Andresen, A.K., 2024. Children’s holistic learning during self-initiated outdoor play in a Norwegian kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(3), pp.371-382. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Aslanian, T.K., Bjerknes, A.L. and Andresen, A.K., 2024. Children’s holistic learning during self-initiated outdoor play in a Norwegian kindergarten. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(3), pp.371-382. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Waddington, J., 2024. Early foreign language education: play as a site for child agency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, pp.1-15. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Waddington, J., 2024. Early foreign language education: play as a site for child agency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, pp.1-15. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Burke, L.A., Jindal-Snape, D. and Douglas, A., 2024. Shall we play?: listening to children’s voices using a playful approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-22. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Burke, L.A., Jindal-Snape, D. and Douglas, A., 2024. Shall we play?: listening to children’s voices using a playful approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-22. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Guzmán-Simón, F. and Pacheco-Costa, A., 2024. ‘Like, I’m playing, but with this’. Materialization and affect in early childhood literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(2), pp.397-421. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Guzmán-Simón, F. and Pacheco-Costa, A., 2024. ‘Like, I’m playing, but with this’. Materialization and affect in early childhood literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(2), pp.397-421. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Samuelsson, R., Price, S. and Jewitt, C., 2024. How young children’s play is shaped through common iPad applications: a study of 2 and 4–5 year-olds. Learning, Media and Technology, 49(2), pp.151-169. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Samuelsson, R., Price, S. and Jewitt, C., 2024. How young children’s play is shaped through common iPad applications: a study of 2 and 4–5 year-olds. Learning, Media and Technology, 49(2), pp.151-169. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Cannon, M., Potter, J., Olusoga, Y. and Cowan, K., 2024. Lessons from the Play Observatory: re-imagining learning through film-making and transludic practices in children’s pandemic play. Education 3-13, 52(1), pp.61-77. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cannon, M., Potter, J., Olusoga, Y. and Cowan, K., 2024. Lessons from the Play Observatory: re-imagining learning through film-making and transludic practices in children’s pandemic play. Education 3-13, 52(1), pp.61-77. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Lund Fasting, M. and Høyem, J., 2024. Freedom, joy and wonder as existential categories of childhood–reflections on experiences and memories of outdoor play. Journal of adventure Education and outdoor Learning, 24(2), pp.145-158. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Lund Fasting, M. and Høyem, J., 2024. Freedom, joy and wonder as existential categories of childhood–reflections on experiences and memories of outdoor play. Journal of adventure Education and outdoor Learning, 24(2), pp.145-158. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Prioletta, J. and Davies, A.W., 2024. Femmephobia in kindergarten education: Play environments as key sites for the early devaluation of femininity and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(2), pp.256-270.

# data[].attributes.subject
Prioletta, J. and Davies, A.W., 2024. Femmephobia in kindergarten education: Play environments as key sites for the early devaluation of femininity and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(2), pp.256-270.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Femmephobia in kindergarten education: Play environments as key sites for the early devaluation of femininity and care - Jessica Prioletta, Adam W Davies, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this article, the authors argue for a rethinking of kindergarten education from a critical feminist perspective. They illustrate how the devaluation and deni…

# data[].attributes.headline
Henderson, H. and Shipway, R., 2024. (Re) framing Lego® Serious Play® for children & young people. International Journal of Educational Research, 124, p.102322. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Henderson, H. and Shipway, R., 2024. (Re) framing Lego® Serious Play® for children & young people. International Journal of Educational Research, 124, p.102322. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About ScienceDirect
Shopping cart
Contact and
supportTerms and
conditionsPrivacy policy

# data[].attributes.headline
Burke, L.A., Jindal-Snape, D. and Douglas, A., 2024. Shall we play?: listening to children’s voices using a playful approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-22. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Burke, L.A., Jindal-Snape, D. and Douglas, A., 2024. Shall we play?: listening to children’s voices using a playful approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-22. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Fletcher, K., Wright, C.A., Pesch, A., Abdurokhmonova, G. and Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2024. Active playful learning as a robust, adaptable, culturally relevant pedagogy to foster children’s 21st Century skills. Journal of Children and Media, 18(3), pp.309-321.

# data[].attributes.subject
Fletcher, K., Wright, C.A., Pesch, A., Abdurokhmonova, G. and Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2024. Active playful learning as a robust, adaptable, culturally relevant pedagogy to foster children’s 21st Century skills. Journal of Children and Media, 18(3), pp.309-321.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Active playful learning as a robust, adaptable, culturally relevant pedagogy to foster children’s 21st century skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drawing upon Vygotskian and Piagetian learning theories, recent research reveals children’s learning can be maximized through a specific Active Playful Learning (APL) approach called guided play. The deepest and most engaging learning happens during guided play. In guided play, adults might prepare an environment and set a learning goal, but children get to direct their own play and exploration towards that goal. Research suggests that guided play fosters math skills, shape knowledge, task switching, spatial vocabulary, literacy, language, social interaction, and physical activity. The intersection of play and the intentionality of having a learning goal holds great potential as a pedagogical approach that can be applied to technology, community spaces, and to classrooms. We describe current directions in: (1) the conceptualization of guided play, (2) areas for implementing this approach in formal and informal education (including television and digital applications, as in the case of Sesame Street), and (3) future opportunities and challenges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

# data[].attributes.headline
K Skene, CM O’Farrelly, EM Byrne, N Kirby, EC Stevens, et al. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Child Development 93 (4), 1162-1180

# data[].attributes.subject
K Skene, CM O’Farrelly, EM Byrne, N Kirby, EC Stevens, et al. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Child Development 93 (4), 1162-1180

# data[].attributes.headline
Biddulph, J. and Baldacchino, J., 2022. Wilful strangers in a possible democracy. In Unleashing Children’s Voices in New Democratic Primary Education (pp. 43-62). Routledge.

# data[].attributes.subject
Biddulph, J. and Baldacchino, J., 2022. Wilful strangers in a possible democracy. In Unleashing Children’s Voices in New Democratic Primary Education (pp. 43-62). Routledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unleashing Children’s Voices in New Democratic Primary Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world begins to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and grapples to find ways to respond to climate change, there is growing recognition of the need to give space and time in primary schools to hear children’s experiences, ideas and perspectives on these matters and to promote their active participation in democratic solutions. This book presents vibrant examples from professional educators and researchers across the globe who are demonstrating how primary schools can nurture the conditio

# data[].attributes.headline
Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, and Camilla Björklund. "The relation of play and learning empirically studied and conceptualised." International Journal of Early Years Education 31, no. 2 (2023): 309-323.

# data[].attributes.subject
Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, and Camilla Björklund. "The relation of play and learning empirically studied and conceptualised." International Journal of Early Years Education 31, no. 2 (2023): 309-323.

# data[].attributes.headline
Allee-Herndon, K.A., Roberts, S.K., Hu, B., Clark, M.H. and Stewart, M.L., 2022. Let’s talk play! Exploring the possible benefits of play-based pedagogy on language and literacy learning in two Title I kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(1), pp.119-132.

# data[].attributes.subject
Allee-Herndon, K.A., Roberts, S.K., Hu, B., Clark, M.H. and Stewart, M.L., 2022. Let’s talk play! Exploring the possible benefits of play-based pedagogy on language and literacy learning in two Title I kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(1), pp.119-132.

# data[].attributes.headline
Parker, R., Thomsen, B.S. and Berry, A., 2022, February. Learning through play at school–A framework for policy and practice. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 751801). Frontiers Media SA.

# data[].attributes.subject
Parker, R., Thomsen, B.S. and Berry, A., 2022, February. Learning through play at school–A framework for policy and practice. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 751801). Frontiers Media SA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education and Development Research Program, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, VIC, Australia

LEGO Foundation, Billund, Denmark

Learning through play has emerged as an important strategy to promote student engagement, inclusion, and holistic skills development beyond the preschool years. Policy makers, researchers and educators have promoted the notion that learning though play is developmentally appropriate-as it leverages school-age children's innate curiosity while easing the often difficult transition from preschool to school. However, there is a dearth of evidence and practical guidance on how learning through play can be employed effectively in the formal school context, and the conditions that support success. This paper addresses the disconnect between policy, research and practice by presenting a range of empirical studies across a number of well-known pedagogies. These studies describe how children can foster cognitive, social, emotional, creative and physical skills through active engagement in learning that is experienced as joyful, meaningful, socially interactive, actively engaging and iterative. The authors propose an expanded definition for learning through play at school based on the science of learning, and summarize key findings from international studies on the impact of children's learning through play. They identify four key challenges that underpin the considerable gap between education policy and practice, and propose a useful framework that addresses these challenges via a common language and structure to implement learning through play.

Learning Through Play and Global Education Policy and Practice

Our understanding that children learn through the natural inquiry process of play has a strong basis in research. Anthropologists, developmental psychologists and neuroscientists have studied and documented this phenomenon extensively ( Whitebread et al., 2012). More than a century ago, Dewey (1910) made the connection between children's natural experimentation in play and the scientific inquiry process. Vygotsky (1978) noted that play is hugely influential on child development in fostering speech development, cognitive processing, self-awareness and self-regulation. Neuroscientists have discovered that the prefrontal cortex of the brain is refined by play, and play stimulates the production of a protein responsible for the differentiation and growth of new neurons and synapses ( Gordon et al., 2003). Conversely, play deprivation negatively affects brain development and problem-solving skills ( Pellis et al., 2014). Play interventions are widely used as a treatment for children who struggle to develop socio-emotional skills including establishing positive peer relationships ( Fantuzzo and Hampton, 2000).

The perennial interest in these ideas is reflected in current global education policy and research. Increasing numbers of international studies now measure holistic skills, such as socio-emotional learning, creative thinking, global competence, innovation, and physical development ( UNESCO, 2016; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2017; OECD, 2018). Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations recognize that the skills, knowledge and values children need to thrive in the future far exceed proficiency in traditional learning areas such as literacy and numeracy ( UNESCO, n.d.). As technology advances and workplaces evolve, governments and education systems are realizing that a more holistic view of education and learning is required, in order to best equip children to thrive, and ultimately, reach their full potential as adults in society ( Foundation for Young Australians [FYA], 2017; Ernst and Reynolds, 2021).

Understanding teaching practice across the early years is integral to advancing these goals. As global standards and outcomes for learning expand to include holistic skills, curricula have become more crowded and teachers' roles ever more demanding ( Darling-Hammond, 2006). Which pedagogical approaches might most effectively achieve our expanded goals for education? Research points to learning through play as a promising pedagogy that is correspondingly expansive in its aims and outcomes for learning ( Marbina et al., 2011).

There are, however, significant challenges to embedding learning through play in practice. The first hurdle is semantic. Play is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to define ( Mastrangelo, 2009; McAloney and Stagnitti, 2009; Whitebread et al., 2012; Zosh et al., 2018). This presents a challenge-that the very basis for learning is a contested notion. Further, the lay definition of play is to "engage in an activity for enjoyment or recreation rather than a serious purpose" ( Oxford University Press, 2020). Play's reputation as a non-serious/non-work-related pursuit is problematic, especially at school, where teachers are accustomed to more rigid curricula structures and attainment targets ( Martlew et al., 2011). The play/learning dichotomy trivializes play as an activity for recess only, or a reward for when the "real work" of learning is done ( Whitebread et al., 2012). When we dichotomize play and learning (or play and work) we negate the view that play itself is educational and children can learn through play ( Wing, 1995; Nilsson et al., 2018). This severely curtails its potential as an effective classroom-based pedagogy.

The second major impediment to implementing learning though play is the perception that it is a pedagogy native to preschool and incongruous to primary school learning. Some researchers have used synonymous terms, for example "active learning" in order to achieve legitimacy at school ( Martlew et al., 2011; Smith, 2015). While learning through play is associated with high quality early childhood education practice and research ( Wall et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2018), and international policy standards define early childhood as the years from zero to eight ( Irwin et al., 2007), studies of learning through play in school for children beyond age five are limited ( Howard, 2010; Jay and Knaus, 2018). Low uptake in school is likely due to differing perceptions of play and learning ( Smith, 2015) and the competing demands and constraints of the preschool and school learning environments ( Nicholson and Hendry, 2020). Other barriers to implementing learning through play include assessment and accountability. There is a lack of established instruments and consistent approaches to measuring the gains associated with playful learning conditions ( McAloney and Stagnitti, 2009; DeLuca and Hughes, 2014). Further, in a misguided effort to increase school readiness, some education systems are introducing basic reading and mathematics skills earlier in preschool at the expense of whole-child development through playful pedagogies ( Miller and Almon, 2009; Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020). The notion of readiness here is hierarchical, where the lower level serves the needs of the higher ( Moss, 2013), and is reflected across the system, reinforcing the equation that a higher level = higher importance, status, and stakes.

Inclusions and Key Terms

This article focuses on the pedagogy "learning through play," also referred to as play-based learning ( Barblett, 2010), playful learning ( Fisher et al., 2010), and purposeful play ( Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020). We do not attempt to define "play" distinctly, nor situate play in educational contexts as a standalone phenomenon. We refer to ways that learning through play occurs, for example as child-led, adult-guided or adult-led as "facilitation" given they point to the roles adults and children occupy during learning through play experiences.

An Expanded Definition of Learning Through Play

A useful definition for learning through play should incorporate contemporary research about children's experiences of play, address the role of the child and adult, and the desired learning outcomes of the approach. Researchers have found five characteristics that embody educational play experiences: those that that are meaningful, actively engaging, joyful, iterative, and socially interactive ( Zosh et al., 2017). Further, play has been recently redefined as a spectrum or continuum involving child-directed activity, and also adult-guided and adult-directed activity ( Weisberg et al., 2013; Pyle and Danniels, 2016), bringing clarity to the adult and child's roles in facilitating learning through play. The spectrum acknowledges that learning through play, like engagement, is "not a dichotomous condition...it can be partial, fleeting and superficial" ( Hunzicker and Lukowiak, 2012. p. 101). A nuanced understanding of the different types of play facilitation can help teachers to meaningfully reflect on their practice by identifying the types and balance within the context and purpose of a lesson, and the impact of these facilitation approaches on student experience and learning outcomes ( Zosh et al., 2018). In this paper, these ideas are presented alongside other key features of a framework for learning through play at school.

Henceforth, we define learning through play as when:

1. Children develop holistic skills by interacting with people, objects and representations ( Department of Education and Training, 2016) in actively engaging, joyful, iterative, meaningful and socially interactive experiences ( Zosh et al., 2017).

2. Experiences are designed and facilitated to make effective use of available resources and integrate child-led, teacher-guided, and teacher-led opportunities ( Marbina et al., 2011).

This article presents an evidence-based outlook for learning through play at school. It summarizes five key conclusions from Parker and Thomsen's (2019) scoping review of evidence of the role and impact of learning through play at school as the basis for a contextually relevant quality framework. It describes four key challenges to connecting policy and practice that the framework attempts to address. It presents the framework and its essential dimensions: the child's experience, the facilitator's role, the activity design, and the outcomes of learning. It includes a discussion on the utility of the framework and future directions for development.

Conclusions From Learning Through Play at School

To address the dearth of evidence on the role and impact of learning through play beyond preschool, Parker and Thomsen (2019) completed a scoping review framed by the research question "how has learning through play been applied in formal schooling, and what has been the impact on children's holistic skills" (p. 7). The review sought to understand current practice in schools around the world, and the extent to which learning through play belongs, and is beneficial, in formal education settings.

The research question was explored through multiple lenses. First, play was broadly defined using the five characteristics proposed by Zosh et al. (2017). Parker and Thomsen (2019) reviewed a range of literature ( n = 124) across creativity, play and the science of learning and found that playful experiences lead to deeper learning when they are joyful, actively engaging, meaningful, iterative, and socially interactive. Deeper learning was described as learning that was meaningful, through making connections with prior knowledge ( Sinnema et al., 2011) and learning that is reinforced through different contexts and activities ( Marbina et al., 2011). The scoping review defined learning in the broadest sense, as the development of cognitive, social, emotional, creative, and physical skills, as consistent with the literature regarding whole child development in the early years ( Fisher et al., 2010). Through these dual lenses, the authors located and analyzed literature regarding play and learning at school (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptualization of learning through play for literature analysis.

The applicable cohort was defined as learners aged 6-12, and almost half of the studies ( n = 61) examined compared playful and traditional approaches using intervention or quasi-experimental methodologies. These were deemed most relevant as the research question focused on the impact, as in the learning outcomes, associated with learning through play.

Parker and Thomsen (2019) found that pedagogies that align closely with learning through play are those that arise from the same constructivist learning theories, namely active learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, experiential learning, guided discovery learning, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, and Montessori education. These approaches are facilitated in a way that integrates child-directed, teacher-guided and teacher led-learning ( Marbina et al., 2011). Accordingly, Parker and Thomsen (2019) used the term "playful integrated pedagogies" to collectively describe these approaches. Herein we have abridged the term to "playful pedagogies for ease of expression, while retaining the key word 'play'."

Parker and Thomsen's (2019) review enhanced understanding of the scope of learning through play at school by offering five broad conclusions:

Finding 1: Learning Through Play Has a Place at School

When learning through play was defined as joyful, meaningful, iterative, socially interactive and actively engaging experiences, focused on fostering cognitive, social, emotional, creative and physical skills, it was found to be both relevant and widely used in primary school. Each of the characteristics of play, and the focus on holistic skills development, were explicit in a range of impact studies of active learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, experiential learning, guided discovery learning, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, and Montessori education. Parker and Thomsen (2019) unpacked the ways in which each of these approaches aligned with the definition of learning through play, for example, how they involved iteration to explore new concepts or ideas, or how they involved interaction with peers to foster socio-emotional learning. This finding is important as it suggests that schools can avoid "change fatigue" ( Dilkes et al., 2014) and start from where they are to refine and enhance implementation, rather than propose a completely new learning paradigm that requires significant systemic reform. Further, the sheer prevalence of these approaches across countries and systems suggests a strong and supportive base upon which to build improvements in quality.

Finding 2: Playful Pedagogies Can Be Highly Effective

There is abundant evidence of what works in education ( Hattie, 2009). However, there is often a lack of agreement about what the "what" actually is. Discovery learning, problem based learning, inquiry learning and experiential learning have been framed wholly as minimally guided ( Kirschner et al., 2006; Dinham, 2017), extensively guided ( Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007), or as a spectrum where some activities are guided by the teacher and some by the student ( Furtak et al., 2016). In some instances authors do not clearly define the pedagogy at all, rendering comparisons fruitless ( Cattaneo, 2017). Parker and Thomsen (2019) attempted to address this issue by defining each approach and describing the impact from peer reviewed empirical studies, making the review valuable to educators who use, plan to use, or plan to refine their practice regarding playful pedagogies. For these educators it is helpful to know what we mean by playful pedagogies, that they can be effective, and that they are effective under certain conditions (and what these conditions are, see Finding 4).

Evidence reviewed by Parker and Thomsen (2019) suggested that playful pedagogies can be more effective in fostering social, emotional, physical, cognitive and creative skills than "traditional" or more "highly guided" pedagogical approaches used in the primary school classroom. Studies measured the achievement and/or growth demonstrated by students learning under a more playful condition, with the results of students learning under a less-playful condition. The types of positive impact presented included: learning gains sustained over time ( DeanJr., and Kuhn, 2007); skills transfer to novel problems ( Purpura et al., 2016); more accurate recall of knowledge gained ( Castano, 2008); deeper understanding of concepts ( Burke and Williams, 2012); and making better connections between concepts ( Castano, 2008).

Finding 3: Effectiveness Is Underpinned by Key Enabling Factors

Parker and Thomsen (2019) recognized that it was not sufficient to simply make the case for learning through play at school via playful pedagogies, and present a range of impact evidence. By presenting a range of implementation quality factors, they suggest that framing, context, implementation processes and fidelity play key roles when considering success; no single pedagogical approach is inherently effective. The factors that underpin success are essential to understand in order to replicate positive results. Parker and Thomsen (2019) summarized a series of key success factors from the literature as follows:

* Student factors: Learners bring prior experiences, skills and knowledge to the classroom that may impede or support the implementation of strategies that, for example, require strong oral language, or decision-making skills ( Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2010; Tan and Chapman, 2016).

* Facilitation: Teachers understood and used essential strategies, understood their learners, scaffolded learning, adjusted their approach to meet the needs of their learners, and acted as learners' mentors or guides. Teachers knew and understood what playful pedagogies are and are not, and they had sufficient subject matter knowledge to guide investigations ( Marbina et al., 2011; Block et al., 2012).

* Design: Teachers designed activities that built on learners' experiences, knowledge and learning needs; they included long and short-term goals, were evidence-based, well planned and structured, combined facilitation types, and fostered higher order thinking and skills ( Block et al., 2012).

* Learning outcomes: Effective playful pedagogies covered depth not breadth, included multidimensional and integrated assessment, and allowed for some flexibility in implementation ( Schwartz et al., 2009).

* School, system and community: Supportive leadership and a whole of school approach to implementing playful pedagogies, including leadership support, planning, scheduling, time, physical space and resources are vital for success. When parents are actively engaged, and hold beliefs and values that align with playful approaches, success is more likely ( Davison et al., 2008; Jay and Knaus, 2018).

These key success factors informed the framework components and guiding questions below.

Finding 4: Effective Playful Pedagogies Combined Facilitation Types

For each of the eight playful pedagogies included in the scoping review, Parker and Thomsen (2019) presented a definition, its alignment with the characteristics of play, evidence of impact, and enabling factors. While noting that they are often used in combination ( Cattaneo, 2017), for example "experiential problem-based collaborative learning," presenting playful pedagogies distinctly allowed the reader to identify the similarities across approaches, including those related to facilitation.

In distilling the evidence presented about each of the playful pedagogies regarding the teachers' role, the techniques or methods they use, and the knowledge they possess, a common theme emerged. Teachers who use playful pedagogies effectively combined facilitation types. While they were primarily described as a guide, facilitator, or mentor ( Di Mauro and Furman, 2016), their lessons were also well planned and structured ( Purpura et al., 2016) and often framed by discussions about prior knowledge of the topic at the outset ( Hotulainen et al., 2016) to prepare minds for learning ( Bruner, 1961) and included opportunities for reflection in groups ( Johnson and Johnson, 1991). Classroom rules were co-created with learners ( Kaput, 2018) enabling learners the freedom to act independently ( Block et al., 2012). Featured prominently in the evidence was scaffolding ( Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007), described as posing open-ended questions ( Haßler et al., 2015), encouraging knowledge sharing, monitoring discussions, and providing hints and guiding questions ( Hushman and Marley, 2015), coaching, feedback, worked examples, and modeling ( Alfieri et al., 2011). Teachers provided opportunities for hands-on learning ( McBride et al., 2016) exploration of ideas and materials, and fostered agency by encouraging students to make decisions about their learning ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014) such as how an activity is performed or when it is complete ( Laevers, 2000). There was clear evidence of teacher direction, teacher guidance, and child-directed activity in school classrooms that use playful pedagogies effectively. This description echoes Zosh et al. (2018) who described the range of what they called "play types," all distinctly valuable within a spectrum of play, adding nuance to the often binary discourse around play and learning, and Marbina et al. (2011) description of purposeful integration of child-led, teacher-guided, and teacher-led learning as best practice in early childhood education settings including primary school.

Finding 5: Agency Is Central to Playful Pedagogies

A number of studies ( n = 10) reviewed by Parker and Thomsen (2019) included the concepts of learner choice and agency regarding learning content and process, as essential features of playful pedagogies. Fostering independent and autonomous learners who are skilled at decision-making is described as a goal for learning via playful pedagogies. When learners have the opportunity to practice making meaningful choices about their project or inquiry topic and how it is undertaken, in conjunction with teacher support and facilitation, learners demonstrate greater engagement, motivation and positive disposition toward learning. Agency and autonomy in learning are associated with fostering ownership of learning ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014), empowered and self-actualized learners, and the development of executive function, problem solving and planning skills.

Parker and Thomsen (2019) tabulated the features of effective and highly agentic learning environments and found that they were characterized as those where learners:

* Make authentic and genuine choices about their learning ( Verner and Lay, 2010; Hixson et al., 2012; Fullan and Langworthy, 2014).

* Ask teachers questions and offer opinions or reflections ( Smith, 2015).

* Have freedom of movement within the classroom to interact with teachers, peers and materials as appropriate ( Smith, 2015).

* Have time to overcome "false starts" and "failures" when task choices need revisiting or groups reformed ( Tan and Chapman, 2016).

* Make authentic and genuine choices in combination with other instructional strategies ( Tan and Chapman, 2016).

* Are guided by teachers to make decisions about learning ( Smith, 2015).

* Are guided by teachers to make choices involving carefully planned, managed and rigorously assessed tasks ( Hixson et al., 2012).

* Learn choice-making skills gradually and experientially ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014).

Connecting Policy and Practice

Increasingly, teachers are positioned as agents of change, responsible for putting policy into practice ( van der Heijden et al., 2018). Their individual beliefs, skills, knowledge and attitudes act as mediators between what is written in policy and what is enacted in the classroom-therefore translation is an "uncertain process" ( Priestley, 2011, p. 2). In addition, it has been argued elsewhere that reform and innovation do not travel well, whether across time periods or across contexts ( Watkins and Biggs, 2001; Hargreaves, 2010). Despite growing support for learning through play at a global policy level, and evidence that there are a number of playful pedagogies that share the characteristics of learning through play, implementation in the primary school classroom presents a series of challenges.

Challenge 1: A Lack of Continuity Between Preschool and School Pedagogies

Globally recognized definitions of early childhood span the years zero to eight ( World Health Organization [WHO], 2020), meaning that early childhood education straddles the two distinct learning contexts of preschool and school. The pedagogies employed in these two settings are often starkly different, particularly when comparing preschool and the early primary years beyond year one ( Woodhead and Moss, 2007). In recent years, there has been a call for more didactic learning in preschool, referred to as the "pushdown curriculum" ( Miller and Almon, 2009). Others argue that the principles and approaches of high-quality early learning should be "pushed up" into school, acknowledging that the transition process is multidirectional and the responsibility of all early childhood stakeholders, to ensure that schools are ready for children ( OECD, 2017). Adding to the challenge of implementing learning through play within the school context, most learning through play policy and research focuses largely on pre-school rather than primary school settings ( Bubikova-Moan et al., 2019). Arguably, the two contexts bring with them important differences that must be considered when attempting to implement instructional practices and pedagogical approaches described at the policy level ( Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020). Such division amongst the different communities of practice around the place for play in learning, and disregard for the different contexts of early childhood education, does not help to move policy initiatives forward ( Nicholson and Hendry, 2020).

Challenge 2: A Lack of Clarity Around the Definition and Role of Learning Through Play at School

Along with issues of context, there is a persistent lack of consensus and clarity about what we mean by learning through play. Indeed, the terms play and learning may be so familiar that we run the risk of believing they do not need to be defined under the assumption that a common understanding already exists amongst the education community. The importance of speaking a common language around any reform or policy initiative cannot be underestimated ( Hill, 2006). A common language ensures that all parties understand the intended change in the same way (policy makers, system leaders, school-based educators, community). This can be described as "collective sensemaking" or the "creation of coherent and shared explanations for 'how we do things around here"' ( Louis, 2010, p. 18). Without clear and precise definitions of these terms, it remains difficult to know if contributors to the debate are talking about the same thing or if the conceptions held by different stakeholders are congruent. Furthermore, without a clear understanding of what implementation looks like at varying levels of quality, it is hard to reliably evaluate the effectiveness of any attempts to implement policy initiatives around playful learning in any meaningful way.

Challenge 3: A Lack of Consensus About the Intended Outcomes of Education

Any attempt to conceptualize learning through play must consider not only the "play" element but also what quality learning looks like and what outcomes of learning are expected. The current push for evidence-based or evidence-informed practice within the field of education hinges on the ability to generate and access evidence of the effectiveness of an instructional practice in facilitating student outcomes such as academic achievement or growth ( Pyle et al., 2017). It is fair to say that there is a tendency to favor outcomes such as literacy and numeracy development, where there are well-established means of assessing student progress, rather than the broader skills associated with learning through play ( Pyle et al., 2020). This may explain, in part, the persistent questions about the effectiveness of playful pedagogies ( Cheng et al., 2008), and may result in uncertainty on the part of educators who wish to integrate this approach in the classroom ( Smith, 2015). Even amongst proponents of learning through play, there is debate over whether play is essential for learning and development or one of many paths to learning and development (the notion of equifinality) ( Roskos et al., 2010). Roskos et al. (2010) argued that some may believe play is nice but non-essential for learning and development, while outwardly espousing a more favorable view of play in accordance with prevailing socially acceptable ideas. That is, it is not acceptable to speak in a negative way about play, so any such views must remain hidden. Roskos et al. (2010, p. 57) go on to argue that while the views may remain hidden, they exert a "strong influence on educational policy and practice." Presumably, play is replaced by other means of learning that are deemed more essential or effective for achieving the identified outcomes. This brings the discussion back to the need for stakeholders at all levels-research, policy, system and school-to contribute to the collective decision-making about the outcomes they are pursuing, how to best facilitate those outcomes within the different contexts of the education system and how to reliably measure those outcomes.

Challenge 4: A Division Between the Policy Environment and the Communities of Implementation

The push for holistic child development through greater access to quality learning through play within our education systems is evident ( Queensland Government, n.d.; Scottish Government, 2013; Zhao, 2015). However, the challenge of translating policy into practice is well recognized. Hargreaves (2010) observed, "seeds travel better than ripened fruit" (p. 115) and proposed that a more promising path may be to encourage policy principles to be interpreted among and between the communities of practice that will be charged with putting those principles into practice. Yet the division amongst these different communities of practice (preschool and school), coupled with a lack of clearly conceptualized "seeds" relating to the principles of learning through play, inhibit the successful implementation of quality learning through play within the school context.

Connecting the concept of learning through play with pedagogies familiar within the school context offers a step toward greater clarity about how learning through play might be implemented at school. Rather than disregarding the issue of context and the impact that it may have on the implementation of learning through play, Parker and Thomsen (2019) offered a bridge to connect the school context with the concept of play-based learning. These efforts support the realization of the key policy message found in the OECD's study Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education (2017), that "schools [should] be ready for children, not children ready for school" (p. 16). Similarly, the characteristics of learning through play described by Zosh et al. (2017) help to more clearly define the concept in a way that brings in the experience of the student, and the description of holistic skills used by Parker and Thomsen (2019) defines the expanded goals for learning that might be supported by quality play experiences. At present, these efforts to clearly describe what is meant by learning through play within the context of early years education remain at the level of loosely connected ideas rather than interconnected elements that are the fundamental "seeds" of implementing quality learning through play. Similarly, Perkins and Reese (2014) argued that a key factor in sustainable and successful change initiatives is the existence of a quality framework that "provides teachers with a common perspective and language while allowing adaptation to different subjects, levels, and students" (p. 42). Importantly, these frameworks are not rigid directives that are imposed on teachers but remain flexible and adaptable to fit the individual context. In this way, the framework provides a tool to bring people together around a common goal or vision, while inviting active input from those involved in the implementation.

A Framework for Learning Through Play at School

Parker and Thomsen (2019) mapped the landscape of playful pedagogies and in doing so confirmed the characteristics of play as relevant and useful within primary school settings. They described the impact of playful pedagogies on learning outcomes, and explored design and facilitation features. Their work provides a theoretical foundation on which to build a framework to explore quality in learning through play. This framework could be used by all education stakeholders, including practitioners, to establish a common language and a consistent set of principles regarding play, learning, and quality in school education contexts. This is currently missing from the landscape of education research, policy, and practice, and is a significant barrier to understanding and uptake of playful pedagogies.

When education stakeholders proceed from a common understanding about play and learning, evidence about current practice can be gathered and quality assessed. It is argued that there are four key dimensions of quality learning through play: the learning outcomes, the play experience, the design, and the facilitation. These dimensions are presented in Figure 2. The relationships between them are signified with arrows to show how and where the elements are interconnected and intersect, and to remind the user of their relationship to each other. Each dimension is discussed, examples provided, and key guiding questions are offered for schools and systems to consider for planning next steps.

Figure 2. Framework for quality learning through play at school.

Student Experience

The framework incorporates the child's experience as a component of equal importance to the other three. This perspective aligns with principles articulated in international doctrine about the child's right to participate and be heard ( United Nations Human Rights, 1989), to be recognized as capable ( Haßler et al., 2015; National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2020), and to make choices about their learning ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014). Student experience is a unique feature of the framework and a positive step toward seeing learning through students' eyes; understanding what learning feels and looks like to them. This is a much needed and often missing piece of the quality teaching and learning puzzle, particularly in primary and secondary school ( Hattie, 2009).

Implementing playful pedagogies requires schools and systems to consider how the student will experience learning as playful. The five characteristics of learning through play and the notion of student agency are useful organizing themes to support teachers' thinking in relation to this dimension. How a child experiences a playful learning activity could be considered in the activity design and measured in formative and summative ways. For example, Fitch and Hulgin (2008) recorded the student experience by observing that students asked to continue learning using their collaborative approach. Collecting data on children's experience of the emotions they felt, both positive and negative, and how they rate the challenge is important to understanding how children experience learning through play.

Embedding the characteristics of play in activities and lessons requires schools and systems to see the experience through the eyes of the learner rather than taking the perspective of the teacher. Key guiding questions that underpin student experience and quality learning through play include:

- What do systems, schools, school leaders and teachers understand about the characteristics of playful learning, and the playful pedagogies that might provide opportunities for such experience?

- How do systems and school communities including leaders support playful pedagogies, that is, approaches that emphasize active engagement in learning, student agency over their learning, learning that is meaningful to the individual and positive social interactions that contribute to learning?

Learning Outcomes

Successfully implementing playful pedagogies involves planning for intended learning outcomes. As discussed above, learning via playful pedagogies is understood in the broadest sense to refer to educating the whole child; fostering a range of skills and understandings. The focus on the whole-child development is a key distinguishing feature of learning through play when compared with other less-playful educational approaches regarding outcomes ( Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020). All learning gains made by children are valued when learning through play, be they social, emotional, physical, cognitive or creative. However, it is important to carefully consider the suitability of impact measurement and assessment tools to capture holistic skills. For example, Block et al. (2012) found no statistically significant difference between program and comparison schools participating in a structured cooking and gardening program using standardized quantitative measures of child wellbeing and attendance. However, interviews, observations and focus groups revealed the program as enjoyable with a positive impact on student engagement, confidence, and social connections at school and beyond. In the classroom, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2010) point to performance tasks as key to measuring the broad range of skills gained via inquiry-based learning.

Key guiding questions about play and learning outcomes include:

- How are teachers supported to connect related skills and concepts within the curriculum?

- How are teachers supported to identify individual levels of development and targeted goals for learning?

- To what extent are a range of holistic learning outcomes included and connected within the curriculum?

- To what extent is deep learning possible?

- To what extent can the curriculum be differentiated to cater for the range of ability levels within a classroom?

- Does the curriculum emphasize depth over breadth in learning, take a developmental view of learning and value a range of learning outcomes?

Facilitation

It remains true that even the most thoughtfully designed learning experience can fail to achieve the intended outcomes if teachers are unable to effectively facilitate playful learning in the classroom. Skillful facilitation of learning through play is a complex process that requires a blend of teacher-guided, student-led, and teacher-directed practices. This provides students with the guidance and scaffolding needed to support learning, while also supporting student agency and autonomy in their learning ( Weisberg et al., 2016). While elements of facilitation may be planned during the design process, effective facilitation will inevitably involve skillful monitoring during the experience, adjustments in response to emerging needs and continuous assessment of student learning within the experience. For example, Hotulainen et al. (2016) described their enriched discovery learning program designed to foster first graders' thinking skills as featuring strong teacher-guidance. Teachers described the rules of the card game, provided scaffolded instruction where needed, and at the end of each lesson, facilitated a reflective discussion with children on what was difficult and how they overcame challenges.

Key guiding questions to answer regarding learning through play and facilitation include:

- How do teachers and schools ensure opportunities are provided for a range of facilitation types when children learn through play, and for what activity, outcome and purpose?

- To what extent are teachers empowered and equipped by schools, leaders and systems to differentiate within lessons to respond to individual learning needs by balancing instruction with guidance and open-ended inquiry?

- How are teachers supported to implement a range of formative assessment strategies and use the evidence gathered to inform their facilitation of learning with the lesson?

Design

The design of the learning experience brings together the intentions for learning and experience of play. The key concern is how to make use of all available resources (students, materials, teacher/s and the learning environment) to best achieve the intentions for the learning experience. For example, Marshall (2017) described two key design features of the Montessori educational method as the learning materials and children's self-directed engagement with them. Sensory materials such as toys, utensils are tools are integral to the Montessori classroom for the purposes of preparing the child for independent living, and building fine and gross motor skills. Children's self-directed engagement with materials has the twofold purpose of providing useful information to the teacher observer, and also supporting the child's ability to focus ( Marshall, 2017) and develop self-control Gray, 2011). Features of playful designs are activities and questions that are relevant and meaningful for children in that they integrate concepts and skills from the curriculum with children's interests and experiences. Key guiding questions regarding design and learning through play include:

- How can children and teachers access and/or leverage a wide range of available resources and a physical learning environment inside and outside school that is conducive to playful learning?

- Can teachers access and establish dialog with supportive networks within the school and community?

Discussion

A framework for play and learning was created to progress research connecting policy and practice by creating continuity between the early years learning contexts and implementation in schools. This section includes a discussion of how well the framework achieves these aims. The framework is underpinned by definitional statements based on the science of learning, relevant child development theory, the role of the child and adult, and existing high impact teaching strategies. These statements give meaning and intent to framework elements, making them applicable to the school learning context.

The Framework for Quality LTP (Learning through Play) offers a basic structure to think about, understand, apply, and evaluate learning through play and playful pedagogies. Educational stakeholders often proceed from an implied understanding of play, learning, and the value of both. Yet beliefs and understandings about play and learning are as diverse as the experiences upon which these beliefs are based. The framework makes explicit what is meant by these terms, and does so in ways that bridge dichotomous representations which have inhibited progress and understanding to date ( Furtak et al., 2016). In doing so, the framework creates a common language around learning through play and playful pedagogies to enable "collective sense making," where all those responsible for developing, designing, applying, and evaluating playful pedagogies understand them in the same way.

The Framework for Quality LTP could potentially facilitate better connections between policy and practice. The early years policy and practice disconnect is widely acknowledged and documented. Early years policy is often informed by evidence about the value of child-centered playful pedagogical approaches in the first years of school (Queensland Government, n.d.; Kaput, 2018), yet this policy discourse does not always align with and therefore travel across into school policy contexts. The disconnect extends to and is reinforced by the institutions and departments that support education for children aged zero to eight, with preservice education courses for preschool teachers and primary school teachers offered and taught separately. Further, educational research communities are organized into different groups depending on their focus on preschool or school teaching and learning. The position titles of those who facilitate learning in these contexts are usually distinct, and there are differing perceptions held about the value, contribution and professionalism of these roles within the education sector ( Harwood et al., 2013). These divisions do children no favors as they prevent implementation of a cohesive and consistent educational offering for those aged zero to eight and beyond. The Framework for Quality LTP was designed incorporating empirical evidence, child development theories and effective teaching research across preschool and school contexts. It utilizes a definition which is broadly relevant to the early years and is based on current pedagogical practice in schools. It could reasonably be picked up by any school or system wishing to understand, apply or evaluate the quality of their playful practice.

The Framework for Quality LTP has the potential to empower teachers as agents of change by establishing a common understanding around playful pedagogies, impact and facilitation. Play has been used in the classroom as a reward, an opportunity for teachers to undertake administration, or to occupy children while a single child receives focused attention ( Gronlund, 2010). Teachers are understandably skeptical about adopting playful pedagogies without a clear understanding of "the how and why" ( Martlew et al., 2011). The Framework for Quality LTP addresses some fundamental questions posed by teachers about the value and impact of playful pedagogies, such as their role as an active facilitator, and how playful learning aligns with the curriculum, and is not devoid of structure.

For school communities to support playful pedagogies they must understand what is meant by play and learning, the roles and responsibilities of child and teacher, and the benefits for learning. The Framework for Quality LTP offers a clear and consistent language around play and learning that aligns with the expectations of school communities around evidence of learning and the teacher's role as facilitator. It provides a consistent language to communicate to school communities the role and benefits of playful pedagogies as legitimate vehicles for learning.

A lack of consensus on a definition and the core components of learning through play at school means it is not currently possible to develop instruments to measure the impact. The Framework for Quality LTP provides the opportunity to develop the research base and the type of instruments required to effectively measure playful learning, for both research purposes and formative and summative assessment. These include "performance assessments, and portfolio evaluation that apply learning to real problems of practice" ( Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 6). However, there are critical steps in the research process required to determine the validity of the framework across different contexts.

A framework based on constructivist learning theories is useful as it acknowledges the reality of classroom teaching practice-that these pedagogies, while conceptualized in isolation, are often referred to interchangeably ( Friesen and Scott, 2013), as overlapping ( Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2010), or applied in combination to meet all learners needs ( Goldstein, 2016). Assessment and evaluative tools exist for specific pedagogical approaches such as project-based learning. However, it is challenging to assess a combined approach, for example, an active inquiry-based experiential learning approach. Comparing approaches has limited usefulness ( Cattaneo, 2017), but an overarching framework offers the potential to create consistent evaluative tools to gather useful data about the efficacy of combined playful approaches.

Future Directions

The evidence that play supports learning is considerable. Moreover, understanding of learning has greatly expanded over the last few decades to include creative thinking, problem solving and socio-emotional learning as essential skills. This paper illuminates playful pedagogies and their potential to support schools and systems to catch up with advances in education research and learning theories. The Framework for Quality LTP holds the promise of a common collective language and dialog about play and learning to further the field and enhance quality. Other frameworks or rubrics may be needed, including those that measure the progress made by both teachers and students. When systems or schools commence a process of review of evaluation to support implementation of playful pedagogies, different stakeholders will be situated at different points at the start and along the path, and these points and their associated characteristics can be described. For this reason, it might be helpful to define the student experience of learning as aiming to equip students with the confidence and agency to drive their own learning through the life span. Further, this thinking could be extended to describe three levels of progression within this category as follows:

* Student experiences are passive, following standards with no clear commitment or discernible expression of interest from the learner.

* Student experiences are active, with opportunity to adjust approaches to own interests with greater focus and greater understanding.

* Student experiences are self-driven with the confidence to try out new projects and apply their knowledge and skills to new situations.

Similarly, when teachers seek to employ playful pedagogies in the classroom, there are various identifiable points along the learning journey, characterized as three levels:

* Facilitation is applied with one instructional strategy without consideration for individual learner needs and context.

* Facilitation is needs-based with consideration for the individual student.

* Facilitation is adaptable and responsive to the context of the individual and classroom environment.

Further research would be valuable to extrapolate these levels and test them in different contexts with different classroom cohorts, and to develop common learning progressions for students and teachers regarding learning through play.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). The Role of Play in Development. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes, eds M Cole, V. John-Steiner, and S. Scribner., E. Souberman Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 92-104. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.12.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frontiers | Learning Through Play at School - A Framework for Policy and Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learning through play has emerged as an important strategy to promote student engagement, inclusion, and holistic skills development beyond the preschool yea...

# data[].attributes.headline
Hogarth, H., 2024. ‘I like to dance with the flowers!’: Exploring the possibilities for biodiverse futures in an urban forest school. Children & Society. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/chso.12901

# data[].attributes.subject
Hogarth, H., 2024. ‘I like to dance with the flowers!’: Exploring the possibilities for biodiverse futures in an urban forest school. Children & Society. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/chso.12901

# data[].attributes.headline
Hogarth, H., Wonderboy, Fairy, Miss Daisy, Tinkerbell, Zak, Fatima, Donut, & Stickman. (2024). Play tales: Co-creating stories of childhoodnature play in an urban forest school. Childhood, 31(3), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682241269752Society. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hogarth, H., Wonderboy, Fairy, Miss Daisy, Tinkerbell, Zak, Fatima, Donut, & Stickman. (2024). Play tales: Co-creating stories of childhoodnature play in an urban forest school. Childhood, 31(3), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682241269752Society. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Quinones, G., Pursi, A., & Lipponen, L. (2024). Forms of disrespect: Toddler’s peer conflicts in early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491231222513 

# data[].attributes.subject
Quinones, G., Pursi, A., & Lipponen, L. (2024). Forms of disrespect: Toddler’s peer conflicts in early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491231222513 

# data[].attributes.headline
Molloy Murphy, A., Parnell, W., Callaway-Cole, L., & Quintero, E. (2024). Polyphonic storying with human and more-than human co-collaborators. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241229228 

# data[].attributes.subject
Molloy Murphy, A., Parnell, W., Callaway-Cole, L., & Quintero, E. (2024). Polyphonic storying with human and more-than human co-collaborators. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241229228 

# data[].attributes.headline
Dickerson, M. K., Fenech, M., & Stratigos, T. (2024). Emotional labour while working with families: Potential affordances for supporting early childhood educators’ wellbeing. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241252753 

# data[].attributes.subject
Dickerson, M. K., Fenech, M., & Stratigos, T. (2024). Emotional labour while working with families: Potential affordances for supporting early childhood educators’ wellbeing. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241252753 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Melanie Kate Dickerson, Marianne Fenech, Tina Stratigos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional labour while working with families: Potential affordances for supporting early childhood educators’ wellbeing - Melanie Kate Dickerson, Marianne Fenech, Tina Stratigos, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Partnering with families is an explicit regulatory and role requirement for early childhood educators, yet the emotional labour involved is implicit and relativ…

# data[].attributes.headline
Cooke, M. (2024). Conceptualising risk-taking in educational settings for enabling pedagogies  of courage. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241260919 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cooke, M. (2024). Conceptualising risk-taking in educational settings for enabling pedagogies  of courage. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241260919 

# data[].attributes.headline
Toivonen, H. (2024). Embodied with data: Early childhood education and care centre director’s stories about living with datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241266317 

# data[].attributes.subject
Toivonen, H. (2024). Embodied with data: Early childhood education and care centre director’s stories about living with datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241266317 

# data[].attributes.headline
Grigoropoulos, I., 2024. Can we talk about life without taking death into account? Early childhood educators’ self-perceived ability to approach the topic of death with children. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 88(4), pp.1369-1382.

# data[].attributes.subject
Grigoropoulos, I., 2024. Can we talk about life without taking death into account? Early childhood educators’ self-perceived ability to approach the topic of death with children. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 88(4), pp.1369-1382.

# data[].attributes.headline
Carley-Rizzuto, K., 2024. bell hooks and Picture Books: Equity in Early Childhood Education. Early Years, 44(1), pp.161-172. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Carley-Rizzuto, K., 2024. bell hooks and Picture Books: Equity in Early Childhood Education. Early Years, 44(1), pp.161-172. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
bell hooks and Picture Books: Equity in Early Childhood Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
bell hooks was a prolific and trailblazing author, poet, feminist, cultural critic, and professor. The author of more than three dozen wide-ranging books, hooks published her first title, the poetr…

# data[].attributes.headline
Kiviranta, L., Lindfors, E., Rönkkö, M.L. and Luukka, E., 2024. Outdoor learning in early childhood education: exploring benefits and challenges. Educational Research, 66(1), pp.102-119.

# data[].attributes.subject
Kiviranta, L., Lindfors, E., Rönkkö, M.L. and Luukka, E., 2024. Outdoor learning in early childhood education: exploring benefits and challenges. Educational Research, 66(1), pp.102-119.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bjerknes, A.L., Wilhelmsen, T. and Foyn-Bruun, E., 2024. A systematic review of curiosity and wonder in natural science and early childhood education research. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 38(1), pp.50-65

# data[].attributes.subject
Bjerknes, A.L., Wilhelmsen, T. and Foyn-Bruun, E., 2024. A systematic review of curiosity and wonder in natural science and early childhood education research. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 38(1), pp.50-65

# data[].attributes.headline
Lund Fasting, M. and Høyem, J., 2024. Freedom, joy and wonder as existential categories of childhood–reflections on experiences and memories of outdoor play. Journal of adventure Education and outdoor Learning, 24(2), pp.145-158.

# data[].attributes.subject
Lund Fasting, M. and Høyem, J., 2024. Freedom, joy and wonder as existential categories of childhood–reflections on experiences and memories of outdoor play. Journal of adventure Education and outdoor Learning, 24(2), pp.145-158.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nordström, A., Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2024). Unfolding joy in young children’s literacy practices in a Finnish early years classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984211038662

# data[].attributes.subject
Nordström, A., Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2024). Unfolding joy in young children’s literacy practices in a Finnish early years classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984211038662

# data[].attributes.headline
Early Childhood Pedagogy Network 2024 What/Who Is at Work in Children’s Play? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Early Childhood Pedagogy Network 2024 What/Who Is at Work in Children’s Play? 

# data[].attributes.headline
MacAlpine, K., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2022). Storying with plastic excess: Relations with plastic in early childhood education. Pedagogy, Culture, and Society

# data[].attributes.subject
MacAlpine, K., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2022). Storying with plastic excess: Relations with plastic in early childhood education. Pedagogy, Culture, and Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storying with plastic excess: relations with plastic in early childhood education

# data[].attributes.headline
Nordström, A., 2024. Reimagining joy as a performative force in early childhood education. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 25(1), pp.80-92.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nordström, A., 2024. Reimagining joy as a performative force in early childhood education. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 25(1), pp.80-92.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V.,  Kind, S.  Kocher, L.  2017 Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V.,  Kind, S.  Kocher, L.  2017 Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood Education aims to tell stories of what happens when we think with materials, when we choose to see materials in relation to movements, encounters, assemblages, ecologies, time, choreographies, and recuperation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rousell, D. and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., 2020. Uncommon worlds: Toward an ecological aesthetics of childhood in the Anthropocene. Research handbook on childhoodnature: Assemblages of childhood and nature research, pp.1657-1679.

# data[].attributes.subject
Rousell, D. and Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., 2020. Uncommon worlds: Toward an ecological aesthetics of childhood in the Anthropocene. Research handbook on childhoodnature: Assemblages of childhood and nature research, pp.1657-1679.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kind, S. (2023). Photographic Doings: Considering the Force of Photographs in Early Childhood Studio Research. Studies in Art Education, 64(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2220103

# data[].attributes.subject
Kind, S. (2023). Photographic Doings: Considering the Force of Photographs in Early Childhood Studio Research. Studies in Art Education, 64(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2220103

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Photographic Doings: Considering the Force of Photographs in Early Childhood Studio Research

# data[].attributes.headline
Artful and Material Re-turnings with Sylvia Kind 2024 

# data[].attributes.subject
Artful and Material Re-turnings with Sylvia Kind 2024 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Artful and Material Re-turnings with Sylvia Kind

# data[].attributes.headline
Pollitt, J. et al. (2021) ‘Choreographing collaboratories: studios of situated improvisations’, Children’s Geographies, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2021.2006144.

# data[].attributes.subject
Pollitt, J. et al. (2021) ‘Choreographing collaboratories: studios of situated improvisations’, Children’s Geographies, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2021.2006144.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V.,  Kind, S.  Kocher, L.   Wapenaar, K. Bosun, K.  2017 Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood Education 

# data[].attributes.subject
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V.,  Kind, S.  Kocher, L.   Wapenaar, K. Bosun, K.  2017 Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood Education 

# data[].attributes.headline
Lupton, D. 2024. A Little Book of Creative Methods

# data[].attributes.subject
Lupton, D. 2024. A Little Book of Creative Methods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Home

Academics

Pedagogy of Play

About

Much is known about the importance of play in children's development, yet little research has explored what it might mean to put play at the heart of schooling. In 2015, the Pedagogy of Play (PoP) research project began exploring just that.

Paradoxes

Perhaps the simplest way to understand PoP is through these paradoxes of playful learning. ISB is a school and, therefore, must be safe and orderly. At the same time, we want our students - and teachers - to take risks, make messes, and get lost in the moment. How to put more PLAY in SCHOOL: that is the driving question behind PoP.

Indicators

At ISB, we want learning to be playful. But how do we know when we're succeeding? One of the first developments to come out of PoP was the "indicators of playful learning," a graphic overview of what we're hoping to see (and feel) in the classroom. It's the basis for almost everything we do.

Practices

If the indicators are the what of playful learning, then the practices are the how. Developed through years of research and experimentation, these are practical strategies for promoting playful learning in schools. Check out our What if booklet for inspiration and examples of how we're putting these practices into action at ISB.

Empower learners to lead their own learning (see how we do it)

Build a culture of collaborative learning

Promote experimentation and risk taking

Encourage imaginative thinking

Welcome all emotions generated through play (see how we do it)

Teacher toolbox

These tools for playful practitioners have been created by ISB teachers. We also use a variety of other tools for reflection, documentation, and discussion, created by our friends at Project Zero. You can find them here.

Pictures of Practice

These case studies offer in-depth illustrations of what a pedagogy of play looks like in action, from the classroom to the playground, to school-wide rituals, and the adult learning community.

Blog

Popatplay is a mental playground (aka blog) administered by Project Zero, highlighting some of the current thinking around the Pedagogy of Play project. As the blog grows, you'll find posts written by Project Zero researchers, ISB staff and teachers, and researchers and teachers at some of the other schools collaborating with PoP, for example in South Africa.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pedagogy of Play - PoP - International School of Billund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Home Academics Pedagogy of Play Much is known about the importance of play in children's development, yet little research has explored what it might mean to put play at the heart of schooling. In 2015, the Pedagogy of Play (PoP) research project began exploring just that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Play is central to how children learn-the way they form and explore friendships, the way they shape and test hypotheses, and the way they make sense of their world. Much is known about how play supports learning, yet little empirical research has explored what it might mean to put play at the center of formal schooling. In 2015, the Pedagogy of Play (PoP) research project began investigating the nature of playful learning in schools. Funded by the LEGO Foundation, the project focuses on three core questions: Why do educators need a pedagogy of play? What does playful learning look and feel like in classrooms and schools? How do educators set up the conditions where playful learning thrives?

The answers to these questions can be found in our new book, A Pedagogy of Play: Supporting playful learning in classrooms and schools! You can access a free PDF of the book, or you can purchase a physical copy of the book via the Lulu website.

We began our research with the International School of Billund (ISB) in Denmark, a school whose mission is designed around learning through play. Our research with ISB inspired a working set of playful learning principles, practices, and tools; pictures of practice (stories illustrating playful learning in action); and the beginnings of a pedagogy of play framework. We also developed a research methodology for examining and enhancing playful teaching and learning. Recognizing the cultural variations of learning and play, we expanded our research to include schools in South Africa, the United States, and Colombia. In each context, we sought to understand what playful learning looks and feels like.

On the tabs of this web page, you can find more details about our research, including some key ideas, resources for teachers and administrators to develop or enhance their playful learning practices, and resources for teacher educators who wish to support pre-service or in-service teachers in cultivating playful classrooms and schools. We also invite you to explore our blog popatplay.org, which offers team reflections and activities, stories of playful practice, and insights and experiences from practitioner and research colleagues who support learning through play.

Since 2015, we have been investigating the relationship between play and school. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that play supports children's social, cognitive, emotional, and physical development, and that there is a positive connection between enjoying learning and academic success. But integrating playful practices into school, or embracing play as a strategy for learning, has proven challenging. In part this is due to paradoxes that arise when play and school intersect:

In play, children are in charge. At school, the adults typically set the agenda.

Play can be chaotic, messy, and loud. Schools often need to be orderly and quiet.

Play often involves taking risks. Schools aim to keep children safe.

Both statements in each bullet above are true, and both statements of each bullet should be honored. These paradoxes are the underpinning of why a pedagogy of play-a whole school approach to examining, discussing, and supporting playful learning and teaching-is critical.
Six Core Principles of Playful Learning
Based on literature reviews of learning and play, insights from educators and researchers around the globe, and practitioner action-research with playful teachers and school leaders in Denmark, South Africa, the U.S., and Colombia, our research team developed six core principles of playful learning:

Play supports learning

Playful learning in school requires play with a purpose

Paradoxes between play and school add complexity to teaching and learning

Playful learning is universal yet shaped by culture

Playful mindsets are central to playful learning

Supportive school cultures enable playful learning to thrive

These principles form the foundation of a pedagogy of play. You can read more about each principle in our book, linked on the Overview page.
Playful Learning Indicators
It is easier to talk about, plan for, and assess playful learning with colleagues who share an understanding of what playful learning means. Together with educators, we co-created working definitions of what playful learning looks and feels like in their own contexts. Through interviews with educators and students, observations, focus groups, study group discussions, and examining documentation of student learning, we developed site-specific, culturally relevant maps of playful learning. If you hover over the points marked on the map below, you can see these Indicators of Playful Learning for each site:

For each model, playful learning is represented at the intersection of the indicators; in other words, playful learning is likely to occur when all three indicators are present. The models are explored in depth in our working papers. Educators have used these indicators to develop a whole school approach to playful teaching and learning appropriate for their setting. Perhaps not surprisingly (after all, playful learning is universal), the models also share features across contexts. Looking across our four sites, we noticed patterns and developed a cross-cultural model of playful learning indicators.

The cross-cultural indicators provide a starting point for educators and school communities interested in exploring what playful learning looks and feels like, and how they might foster a pedagogy of play in their school. If you are interested in digging deeper or co-creating your own playful indicators, the Playful Learning Indicator Guide: A Weekly Handbook for Research Teams can be found on the For Educators tab on this website.
Playful Learning Practices & Strategies
How can educators set up the conditions where playful learning thrives? Based on extensive classroom observations and interviews across sites, consultations with key thought partners, a review of literature (including related pedagogies such as inquiry and project-based learning), and our own prior research and experiences in the classroom, we identified the following key practices and strategies that support playful learning and teaching across ages and contexts:

Practices

Strategies

Empower learners to lead their own learning

Get to know your learners

Involve learners in decision-making

Reflect on learning with learners

Build a culture of collaborative learning

Use play to build relationships

Facilitate purposeful conversations to build knowledge

Foster a culture of feedback

Promote experimentation and risk-taking

Design open-ended investigations

Encourage risk-taking as a strategy for learning

Encourage imaginative thinking

Share stories to engage and enhance learning

Use role-play and pretend scenarios

Provide materials and experiences that engage the senses and the body

Ask questions that invite curiosity and imaginative thinking

Welcome all emotions generated through play

Design for joy

Use play to explore complex issues

Support learners in working through frustration

Click here for an expanded description of these practices and strategies which, along with related tools, can be found on the For Educators tab and in our book.
Playful Participatory Research
To promote playful learning for children and older learners, it's important for the adult learning community to also embody and engage in playful learning. We developed Playful Participatory Research (PPR) as a research and professional development approach for educators to reflect on their playful practice. PPR is a form of action research in which teachers collect data, analyze results, and use the knowledge to develop or deepen playful teaching and learning in their own schools. PPR provides opportunities for teachers to play with ideas, take risks, and explore new possibilities, and it provides school communities the opportunity to come together for conversations about a pedagogy of play. You can read more here about our collaboration with the International School of Billund and the impacts of PPR. If you want to learn more and try PPR in your school, you can find a link to the Playful Participatory Research Guide: An Interactive Workbook on the For Educators tab on this website.

One of our goals is to help educators-classroom teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators-incorporate more playful teaching and learning into daily practice. Here, we offer specific tools and resources that support a pedagogy of play.

The Educator Toolbox includes an overview of the playful learning practices and strategies, and eighteen related tools appropriate for all ages and contexts. We invite you to adapt the tools (with integrity!) to fit your needs.

We also offer two guides and accompanying workbooks, designed for educators interested in conducting their own playful research (and research playfully!). The first is the Playful Participatory Research (PPR) Guide: An Interactive Workbook, developed by the Pedagogy of Play research team as a way to support educators' playful learning. PPR is a type of practitioner inquiry or teacher research-research done by educators. It is a reflective and playful way for members of a learning community to explore learning through play together, through collecting and discussing data, analyzing it together, and applying what is learned. The PPR Guide provides an overview of the process, an interactive workbook to play with, and some additional resources to support the research.

The Playful Learning Indicator Guide: A Weekly Handbook for Research Teams helps educators co-create their own definition of playful learning. Modelled after the research process of Pedagogy of Play, the guide is helpful for any team of educators interested in better understanding what playful learning looks and feels like in their classrooms and school.

Welcome to the Pedagogy of Play (PoP) teacher education resource webpage. Here you will find materials for a 14-session course to introduce pre-service teacher candidates to playful learning.

These materials were created with the support, collaboration, and feedback from over 30 teacher educators from around the world. Feel free to adapt them as you see fit, using all or some of the course sessions. The material can also be adapted to use with in-service educators to promote their professional learning. Below, you will find:

An instructor guide with detailed information about each course session

A course syllabus that can be shared with teacher candidates

PowerPoint slides for each course session

Suggested Readings

Resources, such as Activity Cards and Assignments that supplement information in the instructor guide, and a library of classroom videos from a range of age groups and geographies that are referenced in the syllabus to promote discussions of playful learning

Act 1 Why do we need a Pedagogy of Play?

Act 2 What does learning through play look and feel like in different cultural contexts?

Act 3 How can we promote a Pedagogy of Play?

Project Info

FUNDER: The LEGO Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Play is central to how children learn-the way they form and explore friendships, the way they shape and test hypotheses, and the way they make sense of their world. Much is known about how play supports learning, yet little empirical research has explored what it might mean to put play at the center of formal schooling.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hedges, H. (2022) Children’s interests, inquiries and identities : curriculum, pedagogy, learning and outcomes in the early years. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hedges, H. (2022) Children’s interests, inquiries and identities : curriculum, pedagogy, learning and outcomes in the early years. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children's curiosity about their lives and worlds motivates many interests. Yet, adults often have fixed ideas about what children's interests are and have been criticised for trivialising children's interests. This book offers a critical and accessible engagement with research on children's interests that challenges us to move beyond surface-level understandings.

Children's Interests, Inquiries and Identities argues that the powerful relationship between interests and informal learning has been under-recognised and undervalued. The book proposes new principles for understanding children's learning. It provides evidence that we need to look beyond the activities or topics children may currently be selecting to find out who and what has stimulated their interests, how we might identify and interpret interests more analytically and deeply, and how we might respond and engage with these in ways that take children's interests seriously. Moving beyond play-based activities, Helen Hedges explains and illustrates a number of ways by which children's interests can be interpreted and understood, to get to the heart of what really matters to, and for, children. The book draws on examples from research with children aged under 5 years, and young adults aged 18-25. It also includes a chapter on teachers' interests. It presents new and original models for interests-based curriculum and sociocultural curriculum and pedagogy for future examination in research and practice.

This book demonstrates that leaving behind long-standing, taken-for-granted practices that have influenced understandings of curriculum, pedagogy, learning, and outcomes allows a new perspective of children's interests to emerge. It will be of interest to researchers, postgraduate students, and practitioners in the early years, parents, and other professionals who work with young children.

1. Children's interests: Beyond the activities of the moment 2. Interests and informal learning: A powerful relationship 3. Children's interests: Debates, tensions, and possibilities in practice and policy 4. Understanding children's interests: Relational, ethical research 5. Deeper understandings 1: Funds of knowledge as a framing for interests 6. Deeper understandings 2: Children's inquiries and identities 7. Deeper understandings 3: Children's working theories 8. (Re)Positioning teachers' interests in curriculum and pedagogy 9. Interests, identities, and outcomes beyond childhood 10. Taking children's interests seriously: Interests-related curriculum and pedagogy

Biography

Helen Hedges is a professor of early childhood education at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research focuses on the nature of co-constructed interests-based curriculum and pedagogy, and the knowledge teachers bring to fostering and extending children's learning.

Raising critical questions about children's interests, Helen Hedges invites deeper interpretations of a concept that has suffered from surface level understandings and simplistic practices for many years. She has created a thought-provoking book for all those who believe that we owe it to children to make their learning deep, relevant, and meaningful.

Associate Professor Maria Birbili, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

This inspiring book presents a compelling case for taking children's interests seriously. Drawing upon a wealth of examples, the book guides readers towards deeper analysis and understanding of children's interests, inquiries, and identity development. Bringing together theory, research, and practice, the author demonstrates how interests can inform models of curriculum and pedagogy that have meaning and relevance for children. This is an essential resource for all involved in the education of young children.
Dr Liz Chesworth, University of Sheffield, England
A systematic theorisation of children's interests has not received the attention it needs. Helen Hedges takes up this challenge and brings together interpretations of what we mean by "children's interests". Vignettes add richness to the book, speaking directly to practice and building professional knowledge. By re-naming, re-claiming, and theorising children's interests, she brings forward new ways of conceptualising foundational practices in early childhood education.

Professor Marilyn Fleer, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

This original and scholarly book draws on sustained empirical research with a wealth of examples, a coherent theoretical framework that stands as a timely counterpoint to the dominant narratives of child development, and critical analysis of contemporary policy frameworks. The focus on children's interests, inquiries, and identities brings attention to their diverse lives, experiences and capabilities. The strong theory-practice integration makes this book accessible for teachers, professionals who work with children and families, and for parents and kinship members. Students will benefit from the ethical and methodological reflections, as well as the scholarly justifications for engaging with alternative ways of understanding children's possibilities and potential.

Professor Elizabeth Wood, University of Sheffield, England

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children's Interests, Inquiries and Identities: Curriculum, Pedagogy, Learning and Outcomes in the Early Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children's curiosity about their lives and worlds motivates many interests. Yet, adults often have fixed ideas about what children's interests are and have been criticised for trivialising children's interests. This book offers a critical and accessible engagement with research on children's interests that challenges us to move beyond surface-level understandings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hattingh, L., 2024. Time to play, time to think: meaningful moments in the forest. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(1), pp.22-33.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hattingh, L., 2024. Time to play, time to think: meaningful moments in the forest. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(1), pp.22-33.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Time to play, time to think: meaningful moments in the forest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This paper reports on a study carried out by tutors and students on Early Childhood Studies degree courses at a University in England. The research explored perspectives of three to six-year-old ch…

# data[].attributes.headline
Guzmán-Simón, F. and Pacheco-Costa, A., 2024. ‘Like, I’m playing, but with this’. Materialization and affect in early childhood literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(2), pp.397-421.

# data[].attributes.subject
Guzmán-Simón, F. and Pacheco-Costa, A., 2024. ‘Like, I’m playing, but with this’. Materialization and affect in early childhood literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 24(2), pp.397-421.

# data[].attributes.headline
Buldu, E. and Buldu, M., 2023. Talking over children’s drawings about their favourite play times: how do children describe their play?. Early Child Development and Care, 193(6), pp.810-823.

# data[].attributes.subject
Buldu, E. and Buldu, M., 2023. Talking over children’s drawings about their favourite play times: how do children describe their play?. Early Child Development and Care, 193(6), pp.810-823.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ovington, J. A., & Albin-Clark, J. (2024). Wall(ings): The early childhood story(ings) they tell. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2024.2331860 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ovington, J. A., & Albin-Clark, J. (2024). Wall(ings): The early childhood story(ings) they tell. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2024.2331860 

# data[].attributes.headline
Thunder, K., Hattie, J., Almarode, J.T., Fisher, D., Frey, N. and Demchak, A., 2023. What really matters in play?. Theory Into Practice, 62(2), pp.115-126. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Thunder, K., Hattie, J., Almarode, J.T., Fisher, D., Frey, N. and Demchak, A., 2023. What really matters in play?. Theory Into Practice, 62(2), pp.115-126. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Smedsrud, T.M., Kleppe, R., Lenes, R. and Moser, T., 2023. Early Childhood Teachers’ Support of Children’s Play in Nature-Based Outdoor Spaces—A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 14(1), p.13.

# data[].attributes.subject
Smedsrud, T.M., Kleppe, R., Lenes, R. and Moser, T., 2023. Early Childhood Teachers’ Support of Children’s Play in Nature-Based Outdoor Spaces—A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 14(1), p.13.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Early Childhood Teachers’ Support of Children’s Play in Nature-Based Outdoor Spaces—A Systematic Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) places value and benefits on children’s play in nature-based outdoor spaces. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding teachers’ support of play in environments with rugged terrains and natural materials. Therefore, this systematic review aims to locate, present, and discuss research literature on how teachers in ECEC settings can support children’s play in nature-based outdoor spaces. According to the review, teachers’ support of children’s play was described in the literature as encouraging children’s free and unstructured play through facilitating actions addressing the children’s perspectives and the opportunities offered by the physical environment. Furthermore, teacher support was also described as teacher-led and teacher-guided interactions where teachers and children communicate or collaborate in playful situations. Differences and overlapping elements of types of teacher support are discussed, and implications for researchers, practitioners, and ECEC teacher education are provided.

# data[].attributes.headline
Burke, L.A., Jindal-Snape, D. and Douglas, A., 2024. Shall we play?: listening to children’s voices using a playful approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-22.

# data[].attributes.subject
Burke, L.A., Jindal-Snape, D. and Douglas, A., 2024. Shall we play?: listening to children’s voices using a playful approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, pp.1-22.

# data[].attributes.headline
Koch, A.B., 2023. Fun and laughter promote well-being in early childhood education and care: Pedagogy of fun and big humour. Journal of Pedagogy, 14(1), pp.37-57.

# data[].attributes.subject
Koch, A.B., 2023. Fun and laughter promote well-being in early childhood education and care: Pedagogy of fun and big humour. Journal of Pedagogy, 14(1), pp.37-57.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Building a High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Work-force: Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, DOI:Open DOI Search in Google Scholar 10.1787/b90bba3d-en.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fun and laughter promote well-being in early childhood education and care: Pedagogy of fun and big humour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Danish early childhood education and care (ECEC), fun is often emphasised as a key pedagogical tool but is used rather unreflexively. While well-being and happiness have been studied in various ways, the potential of fun is not included in theoretical discussions regarding happiness and well-being, although most people identify having fun as a fundamental reason for being happy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fletcher, K., Wright, C.A., Pesch, A., Abdurokhmonova, G. and Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2024. Active playful learning as a robust, adaptable, culturally relevant pedagogy to foster children’s 21st century skills. Journal of Children and Media, 18(3), pp.309-321.

# data[].attributes.subject
Fletcher, K., Wright, C.A., Pesch, A., Abdurokhmonova, G. and Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2024. Active playful learning as a robust, adaptable, culturally relevant pedagogy to foster children’s 21st century skills. Journal of Children and Media, 18(3), pp.309-321.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wu, A., Tian, Y., Chen, S. and Cui, L., 2024. Do Playful Parents Raise Playful Children? A Mixed Methods Study to Explore the Impact of Parental Playfulness on Children’s Playfulness. Early Education and Development, 35(2), pp.283-306. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Wu, A., Tian, Y., Chen, S. and Cui, L., 2024. Do Playful Parents Raise Playful Children? A Mixed Methods Study to Explore the Impact of Parental Playfulness on Children’s Playfulness. Early Education and Development, 35(2), pp.283-306. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Alahmari, A., Alrweta, S., Malkawi, M., Nacpil, V., Strekalova-Hughes, E. and Young, R., 2023. Playing the system: Advocacy for play equity in early childhood education. Theory Into Practice, 62(2), pp.107-114. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Alahmari, A., Alrweta, S., Malkawi, M., Nacpil, V., Strekalova-Hughes, E. and Young, R., 2023. Playing the system: Advocacy for play equity in early childhood education. Theory Into Practice, 62(2), pp.107-114. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Baker, S.T., Le Courtois, S. and Eberhart, J., 2023. Making space for children’s agency with playful learning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 31(2), pp.372-384.

# data[].attributes.subject
Baker, S.T., Le Courtois, S. and Eberhart, J., 2023. Making space for children’s agency with playful learning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 31(2), pp.372-384.

# data[].attributes.headline
Moreno-Salto, I., & Robertson, S. L. (2024). Insights for the OECD’s baby PISA from Mexico’s large-scale assessment of pre-schoolers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241267952

# data[].attributes.subject
Moreno-Salto, I., & Robertson, S. L. (2024). Insights for the OECD’s baby PISA from Mexico’s large-scale assessment of pre-schoolers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241267952

# data[].attributes.headline
Pierlejewski, M. (2024). Doppelganger as method:  A framework for examining datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273927

# data[].attributes.subject
Pierlejewski, M. (2024). Doppelganger as method:  A framework for examining datafication. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273927

# data[].attributes.headline
Benerdal, M., & Larsson, M. (2024). Understanding datafication in Swedish ECEC through three evaluation imaginaries. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273923

# data[].attributes.subject
Benerdal, M., & Larsson, M. (2024). Understanding datafication in Swedish ECEC through three evaluation imaginaries. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241273923

# data[].attributes.headline
Albin-Clark, J., Archer, N., & Chesworth, L. (2024). Storying hopeful resistances to datafication: Cracks, spacetimematterings and figurations of agency within the more-than-human ecologies of early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241267947

# data[].attributes.subject
Albin-Clark, J., Archer, N., & Chesworth, L. (2024). Storying hopeful resistances to datafication: Cracks, spacetimematterings and figurations of agency within the more-than-human ecologies of early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491241267947

# data[].attributes.headline
THOMAS, G. 2016. After the Gold Rush: Questioning the "Gold Standard" and Reappraising the Status of Experiment and Randomized Controlled Trials in Education. Harvard Educational Review. 86 (3). pp. 390-411  

# data[].attributes.subject
THOMAS, G. 2016. After the Gold Rush: Questioning the "Gold Standard" and Reappraising the Status of Experiment and Randomized Controlled Trials in Education. Harvard Educational Review. 86 (3). pp. 390-411  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The past few years have seen a resurgence of faith in experimentation in education inquiry, and particularly in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Proponents of such research have succeeded in bringing into common parlance the term gold standard, which suggests that research emerging from any other design frame fails to achieve the rigor or significance of RCT-based research in answering causal questions and cannot reliably tell us "what works." In this article, Gary Thomas questions the reasoning behind this conclusion, resting his argument on the theory and practice of experimentation in education and on the limitations of RCTs in particular. He suggests that the arguments about the power of particular kinds of experiment reside in inappropriate ideas about generalization and induction and, indeed, what a scientific experiment needs to look like. Drawing from examples of systematic inquiry in education and other fields, Thomas argues for a restoration of respect for the heterogeneity of education inquiry.

Cite this

@article{57ef8d9d852244b29d0e75d83a5d6f0f,

title = "After the gold rush: questioning the "gold standard" and reappraising the status of experiment and randomized controlled trials in education",

abstract = "The past few years have seen a resurgence of faith in experimentation in education inquiry, and particularly in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Proponents of such research have succeeded in bringing into common parlance the term gold standard, which suggests that research emerging from any other design frame fails to achieve the rigor or significance of RCT-based research in answering causal questions and cannot reliably tell us "what works." In this article, Gary Thomas questions the reasoning behind this conclusion, resting his argument on the theory and practice of experimentation in education and on the limitations of RCTs in particular. He suggests that the arguments about the power of particular kinds of experiment reside in inappropriate ideas about generalization and induction and, indeed, what a scientific experiment needs to look like. Drawing from examples of systematic inquiry in education and other fields, Thomas argues for a restoration of respect for the heterogeneity of education inquiry.",

doi = "10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.390",

journal = "Harvard educational review",

publisher = "Harvard University",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - After the gold rush

T2 - questioning the "gold standard" and reappraising the status of experiment and randomized controlled trials in education

AU - Thomas, Gary

PY - 2016/9/13

Y1 - 2016/9/13

N2 - The past few years have seen a resurgence of faith in experimentation in education inquiry, and particularly in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Proponents of such research have succeeded in bringing into common parlance the term gold standard, which suggests that research emerging from any other design frame fails to achieve the rigor or significance of RCT-based research in answering causal questions and cannot reliably tell us "what works." In this article, Gary Thomas questions the reasoning behind this conclusion, resting his argument on the theory and practice of experimentation in education and on the limitations of RCTs in particular. He suggests that the arguments about the power of particular kinds of experiment reside in inappropriate ideas about generalization and induction and, indeed, what a scientific experiment needs to look like. Drawing from examples of systematic inquiry in education and other fields, Thomas argues for a restoration of respect for the heterogeneity of education inquiry.

AB - The past few years have seen a resurgence of faith in experimentation in education inquiry, and particularly in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Proponents of such research have succeeded in bringing into common parlance the term gold standard, which suggests that research emerging from any other design frame fails to achieve the rigor or significance of RCT-based research in answering causal questions and cannot reliably tell us "what works." In this article, Gary Thomas questions the reasoning behind this conclusion, resting his argument on the theory and practice of experimentation in education and on the limitations of RCTs in particular. He suggests that the arguments about the power of particular kinds of experiment reside in inappropriate ideas about generalization and induction and, indeed, what a scientific experiment needs to look like. Drawing from examples of systematic inquiry in education and other fields, Thomas argues for a restoration of respect for the heterogeneity of education inquiry.

U2 - 10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.390

DO - 10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.390

M3 - Article

SN - 0017-8055

VL - 86

SP - 390

EP - 411

JO - Harvard educational review

JF - Harvard educational review

IS - 3

ER -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After the gold rush: questioning the "gold standard" and reappraising the status of experiment and randomized controlled trials in education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The past few years have seen a resurgence of faith in experimentation in education inquiry, and particularly in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Proponents of such research have succeeded in bringing into common parlance the term gold standard, which suggests that research emerging from any other design frame fails to achieve the rigor or significance of RCT-based research in answering causal questions and cannot reliably tell us "what works."

# data[].attributes.headline
Biesta, G. 2007. “Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Education Research.” Education Theory 57 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 5446.2006.00241.x 

# data[].attributes.subject
Biesta, G. 2007. “Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Education Research.” Education Theory 57 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 5446.2006.00241.x 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Abstract In this essay, Gert Biesta provides a critical analysis of the idea of evidence-based practice and the ways in which it has been promoted and implemented in the field of education, focusing on the tension between scientific and democratic control over educational practice and research. Biesta examines three key assumptions of evidence-based education: first, the extent to which educational practice can be compared to the practice of medicine, the field in which evidence-based practice was first developed; second, the role of knowledge in professional actions, with special attention to what kind of epistemology is appropriate for professional practices that wish to be informed by the outcomes of research; and third, the expectations about the practical role of research implicit in the idea of evidence-based education. Biesta concludes that evidence-based practice provides a framework for understanding the role of research in educational practice that not only restricts the scope of decision making to questions about effectivity and effectiveness, but that also restricts the opportunities for participation in educational decision making. He argues that we must expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice to keep in view education as a thoroughly moral and political practice that requires continuous democratic contestation and deliberation.

Introduction: Education as an Evidence-Based Practice

Questions about the quality and relevance of educational research were not only raised by policy makers and educational practitioners, but they also came from within the educational research community itself. For example, in a lecture on teaching as a research-based profession, David Hargreaves accused educational research of not having generated the cumulative body of relevant knowledge that would enable teaching to become a research-based profession. It is important to see that Hargreaves's criticism was not only directed at educational research but also implied a message for educational practice. On the one hand, his criticism suggested that educational research should not be left to educational researchers but should be subject to centralized agenda-setting, both with respect to its contents and its methods, so that it can become more practically relevant. At the very same time, however, his criticism suggested that educational practice should not be left to the opinions of educators but that their work should be based upon research evidence. Hargreaves called, in other words, for a transformation of educational research so that educational practice could be transformed into an evidence-based practice. The call for a double transformation of both educational research and educational practice lies at the very heart of the idea of evidence-based education.

In Britain the call for the transformation of educational research and practice has led to a range of initiatives aimed at narrowing the gap between research, policy, and practice. Among these are attempts to synthesize the findings of educational research through the conduct of systematic research reviews (for example, the work of the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre at the Institute of Education in London), and attempts to make the outcomes of research more readily available to different educational constituencies (for example, Evidence-Based Education UK [EBE Network], a network for teachers who want to know "what works" in education). It also includes attempts to centrally set the agenda for educational research, both with respect to its contents and its methodology. Regarding the latter, there is a strong push for experimental research that, according to proponents of evidence-based education, is the only method capable of providing secure evidence about "what works."

Similar concerns about the quality and impact of educational research have been raised in the United States, and the implications of these discussions have been far more dramatic than in Britain and have, according to some, radically changed the landscape of educational research. Although the idea that research in education should be able to tell us "what works" had already been articulated in the 1980s, it was not until the late 1990s that this way of thinking began to shape legislation regulating federal research funding. Since the reauthorization in 2001 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("No Child Left Behind"), the "gold standard" of randomized controlled field trials seems to have become the preferred - if not prescribed - methodology for educational research. Although there is some indication of the emergence of a broader and more encompassing definition of what counts as scientific research in education, the call for causal analysis by means of experimental research in order to find out "what works" remains dominant.

The case for evidence-based practice in education has generated much discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Proponents of evidence-based education stress that it is about time that educational research starts to follow the pattern that has created "the kind of progressive, systematic improvement over time that has characterized successful parts of our economy and society throughout the twentieth century, in fields such as medicine, agriculture, transportation, and technology." They suggest that the "most important reason for the extraordinary advances in medicine, agriculture, and other fields is the acceptance by practitioners of evidence as the basis for practice," and particularly the randomized controlled trial that can establish "beyond reasonable doubt the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of treatments intended for applied use." Some proponents go as far as to say that any practice not based upon scientific knowledge is inferior and should ultimately be banned. The EBE Network's Manifesto for Evidence-Based Education states, for example, that education "is too important to allow it to be determined by unfounded opinion, whether of politicians, teachers, researchers or anyone else." They call for a culture "in which evidence is valued over opinion" and argue that any approach to decision making that is not evidence-based is simply "pre-scientific." In a similar vein they write that "the ease with which politicians, policy makers - and even teachers - have been able to get away with implementing their prejudices without even token consideration of the evidence, let alone engaging in a serious and informed debate about its quality and importance, is a disgrace."

One positive outcome of these ongoing discussions is that some proponents of an evidence-based approach in education have begun to talk in a more nuanced way about the link between research, policy, and practice, using notions such as "evidence-informed,""evidence-influenced," and "evidence-aware" practice. While this does suggest a certain understanding of the complex ways in which research might inform policy and practice, many still maintain that the only road toward real improvement in education is to be found in the "gold standard" of the randomized controlled field trial as the methodology that can show us the effectiveness of treatments "beyond reasonable doubt."

In this essay I wish to take a critical look at the idea of evidence-based practice and the ways in which it has been promoted and implemented in the field of education. Although I do believe that there is scope for improvement of the ways in which educational research and educational practice communicate and interact - an issue that has been central ever since education became an academic discipline- I am not convinced that evidence-based practice as it is currently being presented and promoted provides the most appropriate matrix for addressing this issue. I am particularly concerned about the tension between scientific and democratic control over educational practice and educational research. On the research side, evidence-based education seems to favor a technocratic model in which it is assumed that the only relevant research questions are questions about the effectiveness of educational means and techniques, forgetting, among other things, that what counts as "effective" crucially depends on judgments about what is educationally desirable. On the practice side, evidence-based education seems to limit severely the opportunities for educational practitioners to make such judgments in a way that is sensitive to and relevant for their own contextualized settings. The focus on "what works" makes it difficult if not impossible to ask the questions of what it should work for and who should have a say in determining the latter.

To develop my argument I will examine three key assumptions of evidence-based education. I will first ask to what extent the practice of education can be compared to the practice of medicine, the field in which the idea of evidence-based practice was first developed. I will then look at how we should understand the role of (research) knowledge in professional action, giving special attention to the question of what kind of epistemology is most appropriate for professional practices informed by the outcomes of research. Third, I will look at the expectations about the practical role of research that are implied in the idea of evidence-based education. All three cases raise questions about the nature of educational decision making and the role research can play in such processes. All three cases also raise questions about who is and who should be allowed to participate in decisions about what is educationally desirable. Evidence-based practice provides a framework for understanding the role of research in educational practice that not only restricts the scope of decision making to questions about effectivity and effectiveness but that also restricts the opportunities for participation in educational decision making. This is why, as I will argue in my conclusion, we need to expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice in order to keep in view the fact that education is a thoroughly moral and political practice, one that needs to be subject to continuous democratic contestation and deliberation. From this point of view an exclusive emphasis on "what works" will simply not work.

Professional action in education

The idea of evidence-based practice has its origins in the field of medicine. It was initially developed to teach medical students, but evidence-based medicine has rapidly become the main paradigm in clinical practice and clinical decision making. In addition to the spread of evidence-based practice from medicine to most other health fields (such as dentistry, nursing, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy), it has also been advocated and adopted in more distant fields of professional activity, such as social work, probation, human resource management, and, last but not least, education.

What is the model of professional action that is implied in evidence-based practice? Central to evidence-based practice is the idea of effective intervention. Evidence-based practice conceives of professional action as intervention, and looks to research for evidence about the effectiveness of interventions. Research needs to find out, in other words, "what works," and the main if not the only way of doing this, so it is often argued, is through experimental research, most notably in the form of randomized controlled trials. As one proponent of evidence-based education writes:

The only worthwhile kind of evidence about whether something works in a particular situation comes from trying it out....[F]or practice to be based on evidence, that evidence must come from experiments in real contexts. "Evidence" from surveys or correlational research is not a basis for action.

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) at the Institute of Education in London also argues that the current interest in evidence-informed education "is part of a general move in the UK and elsewhere towards basing policy and professional practice on sound evidence of effectiveness." Martin Oliver and Grainne Conole summarize the situation as follows:

The idea of professional action as effective intervention suggests, first, that evidence-based practice relies upon a causal model of professional action. It is based on the idea that professionals do something - they administer a treatment, they intervene in a particular situation - in order to bring about certain effects. This is why the question of effectiveness, the question of "what works," is so central in the whole discussion about evidence-based practice. Effective interventions are those in which there is a secure relation between the intervention (as cause) and its outcomes or results (as effects). It is important to note that "effectiveness" is an instrumental value: it refers to the quality of processes but does not say anything about what an intervention is supposed to bring about. This means, among other things, that it is meaningless to talk about effective teaching or effective schooling; the question that always needs to be asked is, effective for what?

This relates to the second characteristic of the idea of professional action as intervention, which is that evidence-based practice appears to rely on a separation between the means and ends of professional action. Evidence-based practice assumes that the ends of professional action are given, and that the only relevant (professional and research) questions to be asked are about the most effective and efficient ways of achieving those ends. In this respect, evidence-based practice entails a technological model of professional action.

While both assumptions may be valid in the field of medicine - although I must add that I think they are only valid given a particular conception of medicine and a particular definition of health- I do not think that they can easily be transposed to the field of education. This first problem with this approach is the role of causality: apart from the obvious fact that the condition of being a student is quite different from that of being a patient - being a student is not an illness, just as teaching is not a cure - the most important argument against the idea that education is a causal process lies in the fact that education is not a process of physical interaction but a process of symbolic or symbolically mediated interaction. If teaching is to have any effect on learning, it is because of the fact that students interpret and try to make sense of what they are being taught. It is only through processes of (mutual) interpretation that education is possible. Despite the attempts of many to transform education into a causal technology (often based on the idea that we only need more research in order to find and ultimately control all the factors that determine learning), the simple fact that education is not a process of "push and pull"- or, in the language of systems theory, that education is an open and recursive system - shows that it is the very impossibility of an educational technology that makes education possible.

One may object that this argument is only valid with respect to the content of education, and that it breaks down when we look at other "factors" that influence learning, such as teaching style or group size or even the architecture of schools. Yet, while it may be possible to find strong correlations between these factors and learning, this still does not prove that the relation between the two is a causal one. The underlying "mechanism-which-is-not-a-mechanism" that provides the connection between "input" and "output" is to be found in the interpretations of the learner, in the diverse ways in which learners make sense of the situations they encounter. While we may want to refer to the activities of teachers as interventions - and one could argue that teaching always intervenes in some way or another in an existing course of events - we should not think of these interventions as causes but as opportunities for students to respond and, through their response, to learn something from them.

These considerations suggest that the model of professional action implied in evidence-based practice - that is, the idea of education as a treatment or intervention that is a causal means to bring about particular, preestablished ends - is not appropriate for the field of education. What is needed for education is a model of professional action that acknowledges the noncausal nature of educational interaction and the fact that the means and ends of education are internally rather than externally related. What is needed, in other words, is an acknowledgment of the fact that education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one - a distinction that dates back to Aristotle's distinction between phronesis (practical wisdom) and techne (instrumental knowledge). The most important question for educational professionals is therefore not about the effectiveness of their actions but about the potential educational value of what they do, that is, about the educational desirability of the opportunities for learning that follow from their actions (and what should be prevented at all costs is the situation in which there is a performative contradiction between what they preach and what they practice). This is why the "what works" agenda of evidence-based practice is at least insufficient and probably misplaced in the case of education, because judgment in education is not simply about what is possible (a factual judgment) but about what is educationally desirable (a value judgment). Ian Sanderson summarizes the problems with the instrumental rationality underlying evidence-based practice in the following way:

Professional action in education and, as Sanderson makes clear, in many other professional fields always needs to take the normative dimension into consideration. Professionals need to make judgments about "the most appropriate course of action in the specific circumstances in a context of informal rules, heuristics, norms and values." Sanderson therefore concludes that "the question for teachers is not simply 'what is effective' but rather, more broadly it is, 'what is appropriate for these children in these circumstances.'" To suggest that research about "what works" can replace normative professional judgment is not only to make an unwarranted leap from "is" to "ought"; it is also to deny educational practitioners the right not to act according to evidence about "what works" if they judge that such a line of action would be educationally undesirable.

Professional judgment and practical epistemology

The conclusion that professional judgment is central to educational practice, and that the nature of this judgment is moral rather than technical, does not imply that professional judgment in education may not be informed by the outcomes of educational research. So far, the only conclusion that has been reached is that education should be understood as a moral, noncausal practice, which means that professional judgments in education are ultimately value judgments, not simply technical judgments. The second issue that I want to explore, therefore, is how we should understand the way in which research outcomes may affect educational practice. For this we need to turn to epistemological questions - and it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to this dimension in the discussion so far. The main question here is what kind of epistemology might be appropriate for an adequate understanding of the role of knowledge in (professional) action. To develop an answer to this question, I will take a closer look at the work of John Dewey who, in my view, has developed one of the most powerful and sophisticated "practical epistemologies" available in Western philosophy.

Before I do so, I want to emphasize that evidence-based practice represents a rather broad spectrum of ideas about how the link between research/evidence and practice should be understood and established. At one extreme, there are those who think that research will be able to give us "the truth," that "the truth" can be translated into rules for action, and that the only thing practitioners need to do is to follow these rules without any further reflection on or consideration of the concrete situation they are in. In England, the National Literacy Strategy and the National Numeracy Strategy (introduced by the government to "raise standards" in English and mathematics in primary schools) exemplify such a cookbook approach. (The fact that it is increasingly becoming clear that these strategies are not able to achieve what they were established to achieve is an indication that there may be something seriously wrong with this approach.) Evidence-based medicine takes a more considered approach to the use of research evidence in medical practice, which is mainly due to the fact that evidence-based medicine was developed in the context of clinical problem solving. David Sackett et al.'s definition of evidence-based medicine clearly shows that research evidence is seen as one factor in a process of clinical decision making, rather than the only factor to drive clinical practice:

Elsewhere they write:

In education the picture appears to be less nuanced. While it is acknowledged that individual teachers may need and want to adapt research findings to their particular situation, proponents of evidence-based education argue that in the case of policy, that is, in the situation

where all schools are compelled to change what they are doing...we must have evidence that [initiatives] will work (or at least do no harm) in the hardest pressed, least amenable, most unlikely schools, who may well not volunteer for anything, as well as in schools that are already excellent and may reasonably feel no need to change.

What is most significant here is that although there may be different views about how research can and should be used in educational practice, there seems to be an almost unanimous expectation that research can tell us "what works," that it can provide "sound evidence" about the likely effects of policy and practice, and "sound evidence of effectiveness" more generally. Whether these expectations are warranted ultimately depends on the epistemological assumptions one brings to the understanding of what research can achieve. It is here that Dewey's ideas are relevant, with respect to both what we can expect from research and how research can be "used" in educational practice.

The most important aspect of Dewey's theory of knowing lies in the fact that it is not premised on the dualism between immaterial mind and material world - a dualism that has been the framework for modern epistemology at least since René Descartes divided reality into res cogitans (the knowing "stuff") and res extensa (the "stuff" that occupies space). Dewey offered a theory of knowing that does not start with the impossible question of how "a knower who is purely individual or 'subjective' and whose being is wholly psychical and immaterial...and a world to be known which is purely universal or 'objective' and whose being is wholly mechanical and physical" can ever reach each other. Instead, he approached the question of knowledge from within an action-theoretical framework, one in which knowing is understood as "a way of doing"- which is why we may want to refer to Dewey's position as a theory of knowing and not a theory of knowledge.

The central concept in Dewey's theory of knowing is the notion of experience. Experience is not about consciousness or mental awareness but refers to the transactions of living organisms and their environments. What is distinctive about these transactions is that they constitute a double relationship:

The organism acts in accordance with its own structure, simple or complex, upon its surroundings. As a consequence the changes produced in the environment react upon the organism and its activities. The living creature undergoes, suffers, the consequences of its own behavior. This close connection between doing and suffering or undergoing forms what we call experience.

According to Dewey, experience is the very way in which living organisms, including human organisms, are connected with, are part of, and are involved in "the world." Contrary to what is suggested in the dualistic worldview, experience is not"a veil that shuts man off from nature," but "a means of penetrating continually further into the heart of nature." This is the central insight of Dewey's "transactional realism." Dewey's transactional understanding of experience provides a framework in which knowing is no longer about an immaterial mind looking at the material world and registering what goes on in it - a view to which Dewey referred as the spectator theory of knowledge. For him, knowing is not about a world "out there," but concerns the relation between our actions and their consequences - which is the central idea of Dewey's transactional theory of knowing.

Because knowing is about grasping and understanding the relation between our actions and their consequences, knowing can help us to gain better control over our actions - better at least, that is, than in the case of blind trial and error. "Where there is the possibility of control," Dewey observed, "knowledge is the sole agency of its realization." It is important to see that "control" here does not mean complete mastery, but the ability to intelligently plan and direct our actions. This ability is most important in those situations in which we are not sure how to act. This is expressed in Dewey's definition of knowing as having to do with "the transformation of disturbed and unsettled situations into those more controlled and more significant." Knowing is also important, however, in order to achieve a more intelligent approach in the other domains of experience. This is expressed in Dewey's claim that knowing "facilitates control of objects for purposes of non-cognitive experience."

The main reason Dewey's transactional theory of knowing is important to our discussion is that it provides us with a framework for understanding the role knowledge plays in action. To understand Dewey's approach, it is important to see that we do not need to have any knowledge at all in order to act. We do not need to have information about "the world" before we can act in it. As living organisms, we simply are always already active; we simply are always already in transaction with our environment. This does not mean, of course, that we do not learn as a result of our transactions with the world. The whole idea of experience is precisely that we undergo the consequences of our "doings" and that we change as a result of this. Dewey explained that experience results in "change in the organic structures that conditions further behavior." He referred to such changes as habits. On this view habits are not patterns of action, but predispositions to act:

The essence of habits is an acquired predisposition to ways or modes of response, not to particular acts....Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts.

Habits therefore are "the basis of organic learning."

We basically acquire our habits through processes of trial and error - or, in more theoretical language, through experimentation. In a very fundamental sense, experimentation is the only way in which we can learn anything at all: we learn because we do and subsequently undergo the consequences of our doings. Yet, for Dewey, there is a crucial difference between blind trial and error - experimentation without deliberation and direction - and what he calls intelligent action. The difference between the two has to do with the intervention of thinking or reflection, that is, with the use of symbolic operations.

To understand Dewey's ideas about the role of thinking in action, it is important to see that we only learn, or acquire new habits, in those situations in which the organism-environment transaction is interrupted. After all, as long as the transaction goes on "smoothly"- that is, when there is coordination between our doings and undergoings - we apparently have all the habits we need. The situation is different when we are not able to maintain coordinated transaction, when we do not "know," in other words, how to respond. In everyday language, it is the situation in which we encounter a problem. Dewey referred to such cases as indeterminate situations. To resolve these situations we need to find an appropriate response, that is, a line of action that will restore coordination. Put differently, in order to find the appropriate response, we must know what the problem is. Yet, according to Dewey, finding the solution and finding the problem are two sides of the same coin, because we will only know what the problem really was after we have found an adequate response.

One way to find an adequate response is through trial and error. Sometimes this will be successful; sometimes it will not. Apart from the fact that trial and error may not be a very efficient way of problem solving, there is also the risk that some attempts to solve the problem may be irreversible, which means that if those attempts do not solve the problem, we may not be able to solve the problem at all. The way out of this predicament, according to Dewey, is through experimentation with different lines of action at a symbolic level rather than through overt action. This is precisely what thinking does: it is the "dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action." The choice of a specific line of action should be understood as "hitting in imagination upon an object which furnishes an adequate stimulus to the recovery of overt action." Whether this choice will actually lead to coordinated transaction - whether the problem will be solved - will, of course, only become clear when we actually act. Thinking, deliberation cannot solve problems, nor can it guarantee that the chosen response will be successful. What it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than it would have been in the case of blind trial and error.

It is precisely because our experimental problem solving is embedded in symbolic operations - in thinking and deliberation, in language, stories, theories, hypotheses, explanations, and the like - that we not only learn at the level of our habits; we also add to our "symbolic resources" for addressing future problems. We could say that we have gained knowledge, as long as we do not forget that this is not knowledge about "the world" but about the relations between our actions and their consequences in this particular situation. After all, according to Dewey's transactional framework, this is the one and only way in which the world will ever "appear" to us.

The foregoing account of reflective experimental problem solving - a process that Dewey called inquiry- is the matrix for Dewey's account of the acquisition of knowledge. It reveals why, on his view, knowing is something we literally do, since we only ever acquire knowledge as a result of our actions. Yet knowledge, understood as a symbolized account of the relation between our actions and their consequences, only comes about when we embed our "existential operations" in "symbolic operations"- when, in other words, we embed our actions in thinking, deliberation, and theorizing. One of the main implications of this view is that inquiry, or research, does not provide us with information about a world "out there," but only about possible relations between actions and consequences. In the case of everyday problem solving, we learn about possible relations between our actions and their consequences. In the case of randomized controlled trials, we learn about possible relations between experimental treatments and measured results. In neither case, however, do we learn truths about a world "out there." Rather, both types of inquiry yield "warranted assertions" about relations between what we did and what followed from it. This means that inquiry and research can only tell us what is possible - or, to be even more precise, they can only show us what has been possible. Research, in short, can tell us what worked but cannot tell us what works.

Dewey's account of the process of inquiry is, however, not only an account of how we acquire knowledge. It is at the very same time an account of how we solve problems. From the latter point of view, Dewey's account also provides us with a model of professional action and, more important, with a view of the role of knowledge in action. There are three important aspects of Dewey's account. First, for Dewey professional action is not about following tried and tested recipes, but about addressing concrete and, in a sense, always-unique problems. Dewey's transactional view implies that although there is structure, form, and duration in our transactions with the world, we cannot and should not expect that situations will stay the same over time, and we should definitely not expect this in the social realm.

Second, it is important to see that knowledge acquired in previous situations - or knowledge acquired by others in different inquiry or research situations - does not enter the process of reflective problem solving in the form of a rule or prescription. Dewey's assertion that "no conclusion of scientific research can be converted into an immediate rule of educational art" not only means that all research can give us is an understanding of possibilities - of what worked, not what will work. It also means that in reflective problem solving we do not use "old" knowledge to tell us what we should do; we use "old" knowledge to guide us first in our attempts to understand what the problem might be and then in the intelligent selection of possible lines of action. What "old" knowledge does, in other words, is help us approach problem solving more intelligently. Yet, the proof of the pudding always lies in the action that follows. This will "verify" both the adequacy of our understanding of the problem and, in one and the same process, the adequacy of the proposed solution.

This may seem to suggest - and this is the third aspect - that Dewey would not object to a technological view of professional action, as long as we do not expect too much or the wrong thing from research and as long as we keep in mind that professional judgment is always about situations that are in some respect unique. But for Dewey, problem solving is not simply about finding the right means for achieving a particular end. On his view intelligent problem solving should include both means and ends. It is not only that we need to judge "existential materials" with respect to their function "as material means of effecting a resolved situation." At the very same time, and in the same process, we need to evaluate ends "on the basis of the available means by which they can be attained." The point of the process of inquiry is to institute "means-consequences [ends] in strict conjugate relation to each other." What we need in the process of inquiry, in other words, is what Dewey referred to as "ends-in-view." Ends-in-view are hypotheses that are essential for the proper conduct of inquiry.

The upshot of this is that neither in our role as researcher nor in our role as professional educator should we accept given problem definitions and predetermined ends. Dewey argued convincingly that both in research and professional practice any ends are of the nature of a hypothesis and that such hypotheses have to be formed, developed, and tested "in strict correlation with existential conditions as means." Similarly, we should approach given definitions of a problem as hypotheses that may alter as a result of the inquiry process. Dewey argued, in other words, that we should not only be experimental with respect to means but also with respect to ends and the interpretation of the problems we address. It is only along these lines that inquiry in the social domain can help us find out not only whether what we desire is achievable but also whether achieving it is desirable. Dewey's "pragmatic technology" is therefore not about social engineering or social control in the narrow sense of the word. Action in the social domain can only become intelligent action when its intrinsic relation with human purposes and consequences - that is, when the political nature of inquiry in the social domain - is fully taken into account.

Dewey's practical epistemology thus provides us with an interesting alternative for the model of evidence-based education. There are two crucial differences. First, Dewey showed that "evidence"- if such a thing exists - does not provide us with rules for action but only with hypotheses for intelligent problem solving. If, to look at it from a slightly different angle, we want an epistemology that is practical enough to understand how knowledge can support practice, we have to concede that the knowledge available through research is not about what works and will work, but about what has worked in the past. The only way to use this knowledge is as an instrument for undertaking intelligent professional action. The second difference between Dewey's approach and traditional views of evidence-based practice is his recognition that neither research nor professional action can or should only focus on the most effective means to bring about predetermined ends. Researchers and practitioners should also engage in inquiry about ends, and this in close relation to the inquiry into means. Systematic inquiry into what is desirable is not only a task for educational researchers and educational practitioners but, in the case of education, extends to society at large. Sanderson makes a similar point when he argues for the need

The practical roles of educational research

In his discussion of how social science research can be of practical relevance, Gerard de Vries refers to this particular way in which research can inform social practice as the technical role of research. In the technical role, research is a producer of means, strategies, and techniques to achieve given ends. De Vries argues, however, that this is only one of the ways in which research can be practically relevant, and that there is at least one other way in which research can inform practice. This is by providing a different way of understanding and imagining social reality. He refers to the latter as the cultural role of research.

The first thing that is important about de Vries's distinction is that it allows us to see that the provision of instrumental knowledge is not the only way in which educational research can inform and be beneficial for educational practice. While there is an important task for educational research in finding, testing, and evaluating different forms of educational action, research can also play a valuable role in helping educational practitioners to acquire a different understanding of their practice, in helping them to see and imagine their practice differently. To see a classroom through the lens of behavioral objectives or through the lens of legitimate peripheral participation can make a huge difference. By looking through a different theoretical lens, we may also be able to understand problems where we did not understand them before, or even to see problems where we did not see them before (think, for example, of the ways in which feminist scholarship has helped us precisely to make problems visible). As a result, we may be able to envisage opportunities for action where we did not envisage them before. The cultural role of educational research is thus no less practical than the technical role. A key problem with the idea of evidence-based practice is that it simply overlooks the cultural option. It focuses on the production of means for given ends and reduces research questions "to the pragmatics of technical efficiency and effectiveness." It only has a technological expectation about research.

There are two other aspects of de Vries's distinction between the technical and the cultural role that are important for our discussion. The first point is that although the two roles can be distinguished from each other, this does not mean that they should necessarily be thought of as separate. On the one hand, de Vries shows that different interpretations often help us to see new problems and new possibilities for action and therefore can lead to different or more precise "technical" questions for further research. In this respect the cultural role of educational research can pave the way for the technical role. On the other hand, if research is successful in performing its technical role - if, in other words, research does bring about strategies and approaches that successfully solve problems - this may well convince us to see and understand the situation in terms of the framework that informs this particular approach. More often than not, therefore, the technical and the cultural approaches mutually inform and reinforce each other.

The foregoing may suggest that the technical and the cultural role are two options available to researchers to choose from. This, however, may not always be the case. De Vries argues that the role educational research can play depends to a large extent upon the micro- and macropolitical conditions under which researchers operate. In cases in which there is a strong consensus about the aims of education or, to look at it from a different angle, where the aims of education cannot be questioned, the only possible role for research is a technical role. When such a consensus does not exist, or when an existing consensus begins to break down, it becomes possible for research to play a cultural role by providing different interpretations of the situation.

This shows that whether research can play a technical or a cultural role does not solely depend upon the decisions and intentions of researchers but is influenced in a significant way by the environment in which researchers operate. De Vries connects this analysis with the idea of democracy. He suggests that a democratic society is a society in which social research is not restricted to a technical role but can also perform a cultural role. A democratic society is, in other words, characterized by the existence of an open and informed discussion about problem definitions and the aims and ends of our educational endeavors. Thus the fact that the whole discussion about evidence-based practice seems only to have technical expectations about the practical role of research is a worrisome sign from the point of view of democracy.

Conclusions

In this essay I have examined three key assumptions that underlie the idea of evidence-based education. I have examined the model of professional action that is implied in the idea of evidence-based education. I have argued that education cannot be understood as an intervention or treatment because of the noncausal and normative nature of educational practice and because of the fact that the means and ends in education are internally related. This implies that educational professionals need to make judgments about what is educationally desirable. Such judgments are by their very nature normative judgments. I have argued that to suggest that research about "what works" can replace such judgments not only implies an unwarranted leap from "is" to "ought," but also denies educational practitioners the right not to act according to evidence about "what works" if they judge that such a line of action would be educationally undesirable. The problem with evidence-based education, therefore, is not only that it is not sufficiently aware of the role of norms and values in educational decision making; the problem is that it also limits the opportunities for educational professionals to exert their judgment about what is educationally desirable in particular situations. This is one instance in which the democratic deficit in evidence-based education becomes visible.

A similar issue became clear in the discussion about the epistemological assumptions of evidence-based practice. Using Dewey's practical epistemology, I showed that research cannot supply us with rules for action but only with hypotheses for intelligent problem solving. Research can only tell us what has worked in a particular situation, not what will work in any future situation. The role of the educational professional in this process is not to translate general rules into particular lines of action. It is rather to use research findings to make one's problem solving more intelligent. This not only involves deliberation and judgment about the means and techniques of education; it involves at the very same time deliberation and judgment about the ends of education - and this in a strict and conjugate relation with deliberation and judgment about the means. Dewey's practical epistemology therefore challenges the idea of evidence-based education in two ways: it challenges the way in which evidence-based education thinks about what research can achieve in relation to educational practice, and it challenges the technocratic model in which it is assumed that the discussion can and should be restrained to technical questions about "what works." Dewey's work helps us to see that normative questions are serious research questions in their own right - questions, moreover, that need to be part of a full, free, and open normative debate among all those with a stake in education (which includes not only those with a direct interest in education, but should include all citizens). The fact that the current matrix for evidence-based education does not seem to lead to such conclusions shows another dimension of the democratic deficit in the evidence-based approach.

This is why there is a real need to widen the scope of our thinking about the relation between research, policy, and practice, so as to make sure that the discussion is no longer restricted to finding the most effective ways to achieve certain ends but also addresses questions about the desirability of the ends themselves. With Dewey I wish to emphasize that we always need to ask the question of whether our ends are desirable given the way in which we might be able to achieve them. In education the further question that always needs to be asked is about the educational quality of our means, that is, about what students will learn from our use of particular means or strategies. From this perspective it is disappointing, to say the least, that the whole discussion about evidence-based practice is focused on technical questions - questions about "what works"- while forgetting the need for critical inquiry into normative and political questions about what is educationally desirable. If we really want to improve the relation between research, policy, and practice in education, we need an approach in which technical questions about education can be addressed in close connection with normative, educational, and political questions about what is educationally desirable. The extent to which a government not only allows the research field to raise this set of questions, but actively supports and encourages researchers to go beyond simplistic questions about "what works," may well be an indication of the degree to which a society can be called democratic. From the point of view of democracy, an exclusive emphasis on "what works" will simply not work.

Footnotes

3 Richard Pring, Philosophy of Educational Research (London and New York: Continuum, 2000), 1.

4 David Hargreaves, Teaching as a Research-Based Profession: Possibilities and Prospects (London: Teacher Training Agency, 1996). See also Hargreaves, David, "In Defence of Evidence-Based Teaching,"British Educational Research Journal 23, no. 4 (1997): 405- 419; and

7 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkid=30310000. See also Robert Coe, Finding Out What Works: Evidence-Based Education (Durham: Durham University School of Education, 2002).

8 See Hargreaves, "Revitalising Educational Research"; Oakley, "Social Science and Evidence-Based Everything"; and Cutspec, "Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap," 1-2.

10 See, for example, William J. Bennett, What Works: Research about Teaching and Learning (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1986).

11 See Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies," 15; and Cutspec, "Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap," 5.

12 See National Research Council, Scientific Research in Education, eds. Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002); Feuer et al., "Scientific Culture and Educational Research"; and Erickson, Frederick and Gutierrez, Kris, "Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research,"Educational Researcher 31, no. 8 (2002): 21- 24.

13 See Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies"; Slavin, Robert E., "Education Research Can and Must Address 'What Works' Questions," Educational Researcher 33, no. 1 (2004): 27- 28; and Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, eds.,Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002).

14 Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies," 16.

15 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30317000. See also Cutspec, "Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap," 2.

18 For example, Brighton, Malcolm, "Making our Measurements Count," Evaluation and Research in Education 14, no. 3/4 (2000): 124- 135; Martyn Hammersley, "Some Questions about Evidence-Based Practice in Education" (paper presented at the symposium on Evidence-Based Practice in Education at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, Leeds, England, September 2001. Retrieved fromhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001819.htm); ; ; Fox, "Opening Pandora's Box"; and

20 For examples of the discussion of "evidence-informed" practice, see Judy Sebba, "Developing Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice in Education" (paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, September 1999); and Hargreaves, "Revitalising Educational Research." For an example of a discussion of "evidence-influenced" practice, see Nutley, Davies, and Walter, "Evidence-Based Policy and Practice."

21 Greenhalgh, Trisha and Worrall, Jennifer G., "From EBM to CSM: The Evolution of Context Sensitive Medicine," Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 3, no. 2 (1997): 105; Michael Eraut, "Practice Based Evidence," inEvidence-Based Policy and Practice, eds. Gary Thomas and Richard Pring (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2003);

22 Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies," 16.

23 Hans Thiersch, "Die hermeneutisch-pragmatische Tradition der Erziehungswissenschaft" [The Hermeneutic-Pragmatic Tradition in Science], in Die Entwicklung der Erziehungswissenschaft, eds. Hans Thiersch, Horst Ruprecht, and Ulrich Hermann (München: Juventa, 1978), 11-108; Siebren Miedema, Kennen en Handelen. Bijdragen aan het Theorie-Praktijk Debat in de Opvoedingswetenschap [Knowledge and Action: A Contribution to the Discussion of the Relationship Between Theory and Practice in Educational Science] (Amersfoort and Leuven: Acco, 1986); and Ellen Lagemann, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

24 Sackett, David L., Rosenberg, William M.C., Gray, J.A. Muir, Haynes, R. Brian, and Richardson, W. Scott, "Evidence Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn't," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 71- 72; David L. Sackett, W. Scott Richardson, William M.C. Rosenberg, and R. Brian Haynes,Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (London: Churchill Livingstone, 1997); and Huw Davies, Sandra M. Nutley, and Peter C. Smith, eds., What Works: Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in the Social Services (Bristol: Policy Press, 2000).

25 See Hammersley, "On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures"; and Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational."

27 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30317000.

28 See http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk./EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page/rell/about_evidence.htm.

29 Oliver and Conole, "Evidence-Based Practice and E-learning in Higher Education," 388.

30 Burton, Mark and Chapman, Melanie J., "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services," Journal of Learning Disabilities 8, no. 1 (2004): 60; and Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 335-338.

31 See Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational," 558, 560.

32 I would argue that the assumptions are only valid if one takes a rather mechanistic look at the human being and if one assumes that "health" is an unproblematic and uncontested notion. For a further discussion about the differences between education and medicine, see Davies, "What Is Evidence-Based Education?"; Evans and Benefield, "Systematic Reviews of Educational Research"; and Hammersley, "On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures."

35 See also Biesta, Gert, "How Difficult Should Education Be?" Educational Theory 51, no. 4 (2001): 385- 400; Gert Biesta, "'Mind the gap!' Communication and the Educational Relation," inNo Education without Relation, eds. Charles Bingham and Alexander M. Sidorkin (New York: Peter Lang, 2004).

36 See Burton and Chapman, "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services," 60-61; Gert Biesta, Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future (Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers, 2006).

37 See also Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?"

38 Carr, David, "Practical Enquiry, Values and the Problem of Educational Theory," Oxford Review of Education 18, no. 3 (1992): 249.

40 Ibid., 248. See also Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational."

41 See Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), particularly book VI.

42 Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 340.

45 See also Burton and Chapman, "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services."

46 For some exceptions, see Berliner, "Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All"; Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?"; and Burton and Chapman, "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services."

47 Gert Biesta and Nicholas C. Burbules, Pragmatism and Educational Research (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003).

48 Sackett et al., "Evidence Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn't," 72-73.

50 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30317001.

51 John Dewey, "Epistemology" (1911), in John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924, vol. 6, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978), 441.

55 Ralph W. Sleeper, The Necessity of Pragmatism: John Dewey's Conception of Philosophy (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986).

56 See Biesta, "Kunskapande Som ett Sätt att Handla."

57 Dewey, Experience and Nature, 29.

63 Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct, 132.

65 See Biesta and Burbules, Pragmatism and Educational Research, 48-50 and 92-100, for a detailed discussion of what this implies for the way in which we understand the objects of knowledge and the objects of perception.

67 For Dewey's views on verification, see Biesta and Burbules, Pragmatism and Educational Research, 68-71.

70 Larry Hickman, John Dewey's Pragmatic Technology (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).

71 Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 343.

73 See Willinsky, "Education and Democracy"; and Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?"

74 See Gerard H. de Vries, De Ontwikkeling van Wetenschap [The Development of Science] (Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff, 1990).

75 See Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 332 and 340.

76 Evans and Benefield, "Systematic Reviews of Educational Research," 539.

77 See, for example, Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational"; and Simons, "Evidence-Based Practice: Panacea or Over Promise?"

78 See Hammersley, "On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures," 550.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK Sophia Krzys Acord for her indispensable help with conducting a literature review on evidence-based education.

GERT BIESTA is Professor of Educational Theory at the School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU England, UK, and Visiting Professor at Örebro University, Sweden; e-mail <g.biesta@exeter.ac.uk>. His primary areas of scholarship are philosophy of education, the philosophy and methodology of educational research, democratic education, pragmatism, and lifelong learning.

Abstract

Abstract In this essay, Gert Biesta provides a critical analysis of the idea of evidence-based practice and the ways in which it has been promoted and implemented in the field of education, focusing on the tension between scientific and democratic control over educational practice and research. Biesta examines three key assumptions of evidence-based education: first, the extent to which educational practice can be compared to the practice of medicine, the field in which evidence-based practice was first developed; second, the role of knowledge in professional actions, with special attention to what kind of epistemology is appropriate for professional practices that wish to be informed by the outcomes of research; and third, the expectations about the practical role of research implicit in the idea of evidence-based education. Biesta concludes that evidence-based practice provides a framework for understanding the role of research in educational practice that not only restricts the scope of decision making to questions about effectivity and effectiveness, but that also restricts the opportunities for participation in educational decision making. He argues that we must expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice to keep in view education as a thoroughly moral and political practice that requires continuous democratic contestation and deliberation.

Introduction: Education as an Evidence-Based Practice

Questions about the quality and relevance of educational research were not only raised by policy makers and educational practitioners, but they also came from within the educational research community itself. For example, in a lecture on teaching as a research-based profession, David Hargreaves accused educational research of not having generated the cumulative body of relevant knowledge that would enable teaching to become a research-based profession. It is important to see that Hargreaves's criticism was not only directed at educational research but also implied a message for educational practice. On the one hand, his criticism suggested that educational research should not be left to educational researchers but should be subject to centralized agenda-setting, both with respect to its contents and its methods, so that it can become more practically relevant. At the very same time, however, his criticism suggested that educational practice should not be left to the opinions of educators but that their work should be based upon research evidence. Hargreaves called, in other words, for a transformation of educational research so that educational practice could be transformed into an evidence-based practice. The call for a double transformation of both educational research and educational practice lies at the very heart of the idea of evidence-based education.

In Britain the call for the transformation of educational research and practice has led to a range of initiatives aimed at narrowing the gap between research, policy, and practice. Among these are attempts to synthesize the findings of educational research through the conduct of systematic research reviews (for example, the work of the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre at the Institute of Education in London), and attempts to make the outcomes of research more readily available to different educational constituencies (for example, Evidence-Based Education UK [EBE Network], a network for teachers who want to know "what works" in education). It also includes attempts to centrally set the agenda for educational research, both with respect to its contents and its methodology. Regarding the latter, there is a strong push for experimental research that, according to proponents of evidence-based education, is the only method capable of providing secure evidence about "what works."

Similar concerns about the quality and impact of educational research have been raised in the United States, and the implications of these discussions have been far more dramatic than in Britain and have, according to some, radically changed the landscape of educational research. Although the idea that research in education should be able to tell us "what works" had already been articulated in the 1980s, it was not until the late 1990s that this way of thinking began to shape legislation regulating federal research funding. Since the reauthorization in 2001 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("No Child Left Behind"), the "gold standard" of randomized controlled field trials seems to have become the preferred - if not prescribed - methodology for educational research. Although there is some indication of the emergence of a broader and more encompassing definition of what counts as scientific research in education, the call for causal analysis by means of experimental research in order to find out "what works" remains dominant.

The case for evidence-based practice in education has generated much discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Proponents of evidence-based education stress that it is about time that educational research starts to follow the pattern that has created "the kind of progressive, systematic improvement over time that has characterized successful parts of our economy and society throughout the twentieth century, in fields such as medicine, agriculture, transportation, and technology." They suggest that the "most important reason for the extraordinary advances in medicine, agriculture, and other fields is the acceptance by practitioners of evidence as the basis for practice," and particularly the randomized controlled trial that can establish "beyond reasonable doubt the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of treatments intended for applied use." Some proponents go as far as to say that any practice not based upon scientific knowledge is inferior and should ultimately be banned. The EBE Network's Manifesto for Evidence-Based Education states, for example, that education "is too important to allow it to be determined by unfounded opinion, whether of politicians, teachers, researchers or anyone else." They call for a culture "in which evidence is valued over opinion" and argue that any approach to decision making that is not evidence-based is simply "pre-scientific." In a similar vein they write that "the ease with which politicians, policy makers - and even teachers - have been able to get away with implementing their prejudices without even token consideration of the evidence, let alone engaging in a serious and informed debate about its quality and importance, is a disgrace."

One positive outcome of these ongoing discussions is that some proponents of an evidence-based approach in education have begun to talk in a more nuanced way about the link between research, policy, and practice, using notions such as "evidence-informed,""evidence-influenced," and "evidence-aware" practice. While this does suggest a certain understanding of the complex ways in which research might inform policy and practice, many still maintain that the only road toward real improvement in education is to be found in the "gold standard" of the randomized controlled field trial as the methodology that can show us the effectiveness of treatments "beyond reasonable doubt."

In this essay I wish to take a critical look at the idea of evidence-based practice and the ways in which it has been promoted and implemented in the field of education. Although I do believe that there is scope for improvement of the ways in which educational research and educational practice communicate and interact - an issue that has been central ever since education became an academic discipline- I am not convinced that evidence-based practice as it is currently being presented and promoted provides the most appropriate matrix for addressing this issue. I am particularly concerned about the tension between scientific and democratic control over educational practice and educational research. On the research side, evidence-based education seems to favor a technocratic model in which it is assumed that the only relevant research questions are questions about the effectiveness of educational means and techniques, forgetting, among other things, that what counts as "effective" crucially depends on judgments about what is educationally desirable. On the practice side, evidence-based education seems to limit severely the opportunities for educational practitioners to make such judgments in a way that is sensitive to and relevant for their own contextualized settings. The focus on "what works" makes it difficult if not impossible to ask the questions of what it should work for and who should have a say in determining the latter.

To develop my argument I will examine three key assumptions of evidence-based education. I will first ask to what extent the practice of education can be compared to the practice of medicine, the field in which the idea of evidence-based practice was first developed. I will then look at how we should understand the role of (research) knowledge in professional action, giving special attention to the question of what kind of epistemology is most appropriate for professional practices informed by the outcomes of research. Third, I will look at the expectations about the practical role of research that are implied in the idea of evidence-based education. All three cases raise questions about the nature of educational decision making and the role research can play in such processes. All three cases also raise questions about who is and who should be allowed to participate in decisions about what is educationally desirable. Evidence-based practice provides a framework for understanding the role of research in educational practice that not only restricts the scope of decision making to questions about effectivity and effectiveness but that also restricts the opportunities for participation in educational decision making. This is why, as I will argue in my conclusion, we need to expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice in order to keep in view the fact that education is a thoroughly moral and political practice, one that needs to be subject to continuous democratic contestation and deliberation. From this point of view an exclusive emphasis on "what works" will simply not work.

Professional action in education

The idea of evidence-based practice has its origins in the field of medicine. It was initially developed to teach medical students, but evidence-based medicine has rapidly become the main paradigm in clinical practice and clinical decision making. In addition to the spread of evidence-based practice from medicine to most other health fields (such as dentistry, nursing, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy), it has also been advocated and adopted in more distant fields of professional activity, such as social work, probation, human resource management, and, last but not least, education.

What is the model of professional action that is implied in evidence-based practice? Central to evidence-based practice is the idea of effective intervention. Evidence-based practice conceives of professional action as intervention, and looks to research for evidence about the effectiveness of interventions. Research needs to find out, in other words, "what works," and the main if not the only way of doing this, so it is often argued, is through experimental research, most notably in the form of randomized controlled trials. As one proponent of evidence-based education writes:

The only worthwhile kind of evidence about whether something works in a particular situation comes from trying it out....[F]or practice to be based on evidence, that evidence must come from experiments in real contexts. "Evidence" from surveys or correlational research is not a basis for action.

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) at the Institute of Education in London also argues that the current interest in evidence-informed education "is part of a general move in the UK and elsewhere towards basing policy and professional practice on sound evidence of effectiveness." Martin Oliver and Grainne Conole summarize the situation as follows:

The idea of professional action as effective intervention suggests, first, that evidence-based practice relies upon a causal model of professional action. It is based on the idea that professionals do something - they administer a treatment, they intervene in a particular situation - in order to bring about certain effects. This is why the question of effectiveness, the question of "what works," is so central in the whole discussion about evidence-based practice. Effective interventions are those in which there is a secure relation between the intervention (as cause) and its outcomes or results (as effects). It is important to note that "effectiveness" is an instrumental value: it refers to the quality of processes but does not say anything about what an intervention is supposed to bring about. This means, among other things, that it is meaningless to talk about effective teaching or effective schooling; the question that always needs to be asked is, effective for what?

This relates to the second characteristic of the idea of professional action as intervention, which is that evidence-based practice appears to rely on a separation between the means and ends of professional action. Evidence-based practice assumes that the ends of professional action are given, and that the only relevant (professional and research) questions to be asked are about the most effective and efficient ways of achieving those ends. In this respect, evidence-based practice entails a technological model of professional action.

While both assumptions may be valid in the field of medicine - although I must add that I think they are only valid given a particular conception of medicine and a particular definition of health- I do not think that they can easily be transposed to the field of education. This first problem with this approach is the role of causality: apart from the obvious fact that the condition of being a student is quite different from that of being a patient - being a student is not an illness, just as teaching is not a cure - the most important argument against the idea that education is a causal process lies in the fact that education is not a process of physical interaction but a process of symbolic or symbolically mediated interaction. If teaching is to have any effect on learning, it is because of the fact that students interpret and try to make sense of what they are being taught. It is only through processes of (mutual) interpretation that education is possible. Despite the attempts of many to transform education into a causal technology (often based on the idea that we only need more research in order to find and ultimately control all the factors that determine learning), the simple fact that education is not a process of "push and pull"- or, in the language of systems theory, that education is an open and recursive system - shows that it is the very impossibility of an educational technology that makes education possible.

One may object that this argument is only valid with respect to the content of education, and that it breaks down when we look at other "factors" that influence learning, such as teaching style or group size or even the architecture of schools. Yet, while it may be possible to find strong correlations between these factors and learning, this still does not prove that the relation between the two is a causal one. The underlying "mechanism-which-is-not-a-mechanism" that provides the connection between "input" and "output" is to be found in the interpretations of the learner, in the diverse ways in which learners make sense of the situations they encounter. While we may want to refer to the activities of teachers as interventions - and one could argue that teaching always intervenes in some way or another in an existing course of events - we should not think of these interventions as causes but as opportunities for students to respond and, through their response, to learn something from them.

These considerations suggest that the model of professional action implied in evidence-based practice - that is, the idea of education as a treatment or intervention that is a causal means to bring about particular, preestablished ends - is not appropriate for the field of education. What is needed for education is a model of professional action that acknowledges the noncausal nature of educational interaction and the fact that the means and ends of education are internally rather than externally related. What is needed, in other words, is an acknowledgment of the fact that education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one - a distinction that dates back to Aristotle's distinction between phronesis (practical wisdom) and techne (instrumental knowledge). The most important question for educational professionals is therefore not about the effectiveness of their actions but about the potential educational value of what they do, that is, about the educational desirability of the opportunities for learning that follow from their actions (and what should be prevented at all costs is the situation in which there is a performative contradiction between what they preach and what they practice). This is why the "what works" agenda of evidence-based practice is at least insufficient and probably misplaced in the case of education, because judgment in education is not simply about what is possible (a factual judgment) but about what is educationally desirable (a value judgment). Ian Sanderson summarizes the problems with the instrumental rationality underlying evidence-based practice in the following way:

Professional action in education and, as Sanderson makes clear, in many other professional fields always needs to take the normative dimension into consideration. Professionals need to make judgments about "the most appropriate course of action in the specific circumstances in a context of informal rules, heuristics, norms and values." Sanderson therefore concludes that "the question for teachers is not simply 'what is effective' but rather, more broadly it is, 'what is appropriate for these children in these circumstances.'" To suggest that research about "what works" can replace normative professional judgment is not only to make an unwarranted leap from "is" to "ought"; it is also to deny educational practitioners the right not to act according to evidence about "what works" if they judge that such a line of action would be educationally undesirable.

Professional judgment and practical epistemology

The conclusion that professional judgment is central to educational practice, and that the nature of this judgment is moral rather than technical, does not imply that professional judgment in education may not be informed by the outcomes of educational research. So far, the only conclusion that has been reached is that education should be understood as a moral, noncausal practice, which means that professional judgments in education are ultimately value judgments, not simply technical judgments. The second issue that I want to explore, therefore, is how we should understand the way in which research outcomes may affect educational practice. For this we need to turn to epistemological questions - and it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to this dimension in the discussion so far. The main question here is what kind of epistemology might be appropriate for an adequate understanding of the role of knowledge in (professional) action. To develop an answer to this question, I will take a closer look at the work of John Dewey who, in my view, has developed one of the most powerful and sophisticated "practical epistemologies" available in Western philosophy.

Before I do so, I want to emphasize that evidence-based practice represents a rather broad spectrum of ideas about how the link between research/evidence and practice should be understood and established. At one extreme, there are those who think that research will be able to give us "the truth," that "the truth" can be translated into rules for action, and that the only thing practitioners need to do is to follow these rules without any further reflection on or consideration of the concrete situation they are in. In England, the National Literacy Strategy and the National Numeracy Strategy (introduced by the government to "raise standards" in English and mathematics in primary schools) exemplify such a cookbook approach. (The fact that it is increasingly becoming clear that these strategies are not able to achieve what they were established to achieve is an indication that there may be something seriously wrong with this approach.) Evidence-based medicine takes a more considered approach to the use of research evidence in medical practice, which is mainly due to the fact that evidence-based medicine was developed in the context of clinical problem solving. David Sackett et al.'s definition of evidence-based medicine clearly shows that research evidence is seen as one factor in a process of clinical decision making, rather than the only factor to drive clinical practice:

Elsewhere they write:

In education the picture appears to be less nuanced. While it is acknowledged that individual teachers may need and want to adapt research findings to their particular situation, proponents of evidence-based education argue that in the case of policy, that is, in the situation

where all schools are compelled to change what they are doing...we must have evidence that [initiatives] will work (or at least do no harm) in the hardest pressed, least amenable, most unlikely schools, who may well not volunteer for anything, as well as in schools that are already excellent and may reasonably feel no need to change.

What is most significant here is that although there may be different views about how research can and should be used in educational practice, there seems to be an almost unanimous expectation that research can tell us "what works," that it can provide "sound evidence" about the likely effects of policy and practice, and "sound evidence of effectiveness" more generally. Whether these expectations are warranted ultimately depends on the epistemological assumptions one brings to the understanding of what research can achieve. It is here that Dewey's ideas are relevant, with respect to both what we can expect from research and how research can be "used" in educational practice.

The most important aspect of Dewey's theory of knowing lies in the fact that it is not premised on the dualism between immaterial mind and material world - a dualism that has been the framework for modern epistemology at least since René Descartes divided reality into res cogitans (the knowing "stuff") and res extensa (the "stuff" that occupies space). Dewey offered a theory of knowing that does not start with the impossible question of how "a knower who is purely individual or 'subjective' and whose being is wholly psychical and immaterial...and a world to be known which is purely universal or 'objective' and whose being is wholly mechanical and physical" can ever reach each other. Instead, he approached the question of knowledge from within an action-theoretical framework, one in which knowing is understood as "a way of doing"- which is why we may want to refer to Dewey's position as a theory of knowing and not a theory of knowledge.

The central concept in Dewey's theory of knowing is the notion of experience. Experience is not about consciousness or mental awareness but refers to the transactions of living organisms and their environments. What is distinctive about these transactions is that they constitute a double relationship:

The organism acts in accordance with its own structure, simple or complex, upon its surroundings. As a consequence the changes produced in the environment react upon the organism and its activities. The living creature undergoes, suffers, the consequences of its own behavior. This close connection between doing and suffering or undergoing forms what we call experience.

According to Dewey, experience is the very way in which living organisms, including human organisms, are connected with, are part of, and are involved in "the world." Contrary to what is suggested in the dualistic worldview, experience is not"a veil that shuts man off from nature," but "a means of penetrating continually further into the heart of nature." This is the central insight of Dewey's "transactional realism." Dewey's transactional understanding of experience provides a framework in which knowing is no longer about an immaterial mind looking at the material world and registering what goes on in it - a view to which Dewey referred as the spectator theory of knowledge. For him, knowing is not about a world "out there," but concerns the relation between our actions and their consequences - which is the central idea of Dewey's transactional theory of knowing.

Because knowing is about grasping and understanding the relation between our actions and their consequences, knowing can help us to gain better control over our actions - better at least, that is, than in the case of blind trial and error. "Where there is the possibility of control," Dewey observed, "knowledge is the sole agency of its realization." It is important to see that "control" here does not mean complete mastery, but the ability to intelligently plan and direct our actions. This ability is most important in those situations in which we are not sure how to act. This is expressed in Dewey's definition of knowing as having to do with "the transformation of disturbed and unsettled situations into those more controlled and more significant." Knowing is also important, however, in order to achieve a more intelligent approach in the other domains of experience. This is expressed in Dewey's claim that knowing "facilitates control of objects for purposes of non-cognitive experience."

The main reason Dewey's transactional theory of knowing is important to our discussion is that it provides us with a framework for understanding the role knowledge plays in action. To understand Dewey's approach, it is important to see that we do not need to have any knowledge at all in order to act. We do not need to have information about "the world" before we can act in it. As living organisms, we simply are always already active; we simply are always already in transaction with our environment. This does not mean, of course, that we do not learn as a result of our transactions with the world. The whole idea of experience is precisely that we undergo the consequences of our "doings" and that we change as a result of this. Dewey explained that experience results in "change in the organic structures that conditions further behavior." He referred to such changes as habits. On this view habits are not patterns of action, but predispositions to act:

The essence of habits is an acquired predisposition to ways or modes of response, not to particular acts....Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts.

Habits therefore are "the basis of organic learning."

We basically acquire our habits through processes of trial and error - or, in more theoretical language, through experimentation. In a very fundamental sense, experimentation is the only way in which we can learn anything at all: we learn because we do and subsequently undergo the consequences of our doings. Yet, for Dewey, there is a crucial difference between blind trial and error - experimentation without deliberation and direction - and what he calls intelligent action. The difference between the two has to do with the intervention of thinking or reflection, that is, with the use of symbolic operations.

To understand Dewey's ideas about the role of thinking in action, it is important to see that we only learn, or acquire new habits, in those situations in which the organism-environment transaction is interrupted. After all, as long as the transaction goes on "smoothly"- that is, when there is coordination between our doings and undergoings - we apparently have all the habits we need. The situation is different when we are not able to maintain coordinated transaction, when we do not "know," in other words, how to respond. In everyday language, it is the situation in which we encounter a problem. Dewey referred to such cases as indeterminate situations. To resolve these situations we need to find an appropriate response, that is, a line of action that will restore coordination. Put differently, in order to find the appropriate response, we must know what the problem is. Yet, according to Dewey, finding the solution and finding the problem are two sides of the same coin, because we will only know what the problem really was after we have found an adequate response.

One way to find an adequate response is through trial and error. Sometimes this will be successful; sometimes it will not. Apart from the fact that trial and error may not be a very efficient way of problem solving, there is also the risk that some attempts to solve the problem may be irreversible, which means that if those attempts do not solve the problem, we may not be able to solve the problem at all. The way out of this predicament, according to Dewey, is through experimentation with different lines of action at a symbolic level rather than through overt action. This is precisely what thinking does: it is the "dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action." The choice of a specific line of action should be understood as "hitting in imagination upon an object which furnishes an adequate stimulus to the recovery of overt action." Whether this choice will actually lead to coordinated transaction - whether the problem will be solved - will, of course, only become clear when we actually act. Thinking, deliberation cannot solve problems, nor can it guarantee that the chosen response will be successful. What it can do is make the process of choosing more intelligent than it would have been in the case of blind trial and error.

It is precisely because our experimental problem solving is embedded in symbolic operations - in thinking and deliberation, in language, stories, theories, hypotheses, explanations, and the like - that we not only learn at the level of our habits; we also add to our "symbolic resources" for addressing future problems. We could say that we have gained knowledge, as long as we do not forget that this is not knowledge about "the world" but about the relations between our actions and their consequences in this particular situation. After all, according to Dewey's transactional framework, this is the one and only way in which the world will ever "appear" to us.

The foregoing account of reflective experimental problem solving - a process that Dewey called inquiry- is the matrix for Dewey's account of the acquisition of knowledge. It reveals why, on his view, knowing is something we literally do, since we only ever acquire knowledge as a result of our actions. Yet knowledge, understood as a symbolized account of the relation between our actions and their consequences, only comes about when we embed our "existential operations" in "symbolic operations"- when, in other words, we embed our actions in thinking, deliberation, and theorizing. One of the main implications of this view is that inquiry, or research, does not provide us with information about a world "out there," but only about possible relations between actions and consequences. In the case of everyday problem solving, we learn about possible relations between our actions and their consequences. In the case of randomized controlled trials, we learn about possible relations between experimental treatments and measured results. In neither case, however, do we learn truths about a world "out there." Rather, both types of inquiry yield "warranted assertions" about relations between what we did and what followed from it. This means that inquiry and research can only tell us what is possible - or, to be even more precise, they can only show us what has been possible. Research, in short, can tell us what worked but cannot tell us what works.

Dewey's account of the process of inquiry is, however, not only an account of how we acquire knowledge. It is at the very same time an account of how we solve problems. From the latter point of view, Dewey's account also provides us with a model of professional action and, more important, with a view of the role of knowledge in action. There are three important aspects of Dewey's account. First, for Dewey professional action is not about following tried and tested recipes, but about addressing concrete and, in a sense, always-unique problems. Dewey's transactional view implies that although there is structure, form, and duration in our transactions with the world, we cannot and should not expect that situations will stay the same over time, and we should definitely not expect this in the social realm.

Second, it is important to see that knowledge acquired in previous situations - or knowledge acquired by others in different inquiry or research situations - does not enter the process of reflective problem solving in the form of a rule or prescription. Dewey's assertion that "no conclusion of scientific research can be converted into an immediate rule of educational art" not only means that all research can give us is an understanding of possibilities - of what worked, not what will work. It also means that in reflective problem solving we do not use "old" knowledge to tell us what we should do; we use "old" knowledge to guide us first in our attempts to understand what the problem might be and then in the intelligent selection of possible lines of action. What "old" knowledge does, in other words, is help us approach problem solving more intelligently. Yet, the proof of the pudding always lies in the action that follows. This will "verify" both the adequacy of our understanding of the problem and, in one and the same process, the adequacy of the proposed solution.

This may seem to suggest - and this is the third aspect - that Dewey would not object to a technological view of professional action, as long as we do not expect too much or the wrong thing from research and as long as we keep in mind that professional judgment is always about situations that are in some respect unique. But for Dewey, problem solving is not simply about finding the right means for achieving a particular end. On his view intelligent problem solving should include both means and ends. It is not only that we need to judge "existential materials" with respect to their function "as material means of effecting a resolved situation." At the very same time, and in the same process, we need to evaluate ends "on the basis of the available means by which they can be attained." The point of the process of inquiry is to institute "means-consequences [ends] in strict conjugate relation to each other." What we need in the process of inquiry, in other words, is what Dewey referred to as "ends-in-view." Ends-in-view are hypotheses that are essential for the proper conduct of inquiry.

The upshot of this is that neither in our role as researcher nor in our role as professional educator should we accept given problem definitions and predetermined ends. Dewey argued convincingly that both in research and professional practice any ends are of the nature of a hypothesis and that such hypotheses have to be formed, developed, and tested "in strict correlation with existential conditions as means." Similarly, we should approach given definitions of a problem as hypotheses that may alter as a result of the inquiry process. Dewey argued, in other words, that we should not only be experimental with respect to means but also with respect to ends and the interpretation of the problems we address. It is only along these lines that inquiry in the social domain can help us find out not only whether what we desire is achievable but also whether achieving it is desirable. Dewey's "pragmatic technology" is therefore not about social engineering or social control in the narrow sense of the word. Action in the social domain can only become intelligent action when its intrinsic relation with human purposes and consequences - that is, when the political nature of inquiry in the social domain - is fully taken into account.

Dewey's practical epistemology thus provides us with an interesting alternative for the model of evidence-based education. There are two crucial differences. First, Dewey showed that "evidence"- if such a thing exists - does not provide us with rules for action but only with hypotheses for intelligent problem solving. If, to look at it from a slightly different angle, we want an epistemology that is practical enough to understand how knowledge can support practice, we have to concede that the knowledge available through research is not about what works and will work, but about what has worked in the past. The only way to use this knowledge is as an instrument for undertaking intelligent professional action. The second difference between Dewey's approach and traditional views of evidence-based practice is his recognition that neither research nor professional action can or should only focus on the most effective means to bring about predetermined ends. Researchers and practitioners should also engage in inquiry about ends, and this in close relation to the inquiry into means. Systematic inquiry into what is desirable is not only a task for educational researchers and educational practitioners but, in the case of education, extends to society at large. Sanderson makes a similar point when he argues for the need

The practical roles of educational research

In his discussion of how social science research can be of practical relevance, Gerard de Vries refers to this particular way in which research can inform social practice as the technical role of research. In the technical role, research is a producer of means, strategies, and techniques to achieve given ends. De Vries argues, however, that this is only one of the ways in which research can be practically relevant, and that there is at least one other way in which research can inform practice. This is by providing a different way of understanding and imagining social reality. He refers to the latter as the cultural role of research.

The first thing that is important about de Vries's distinction is that it allows us to see that the provision of instrumental knowledge is not the only way in which educational research can inform and be beneficial for educational practice. While there is an important task for educational research in finding, testing, and evaluating different forms of educational action, research can also play a valuable role in helping educational practitioners to acquire a different understanding of their practice, in helping them to see and imagine their practice differently. To see a classroom through the lens of behavioral objectives or through the lens of legitimate peripheral participation can make a huge difference. By looking through a different theoretical lens, we may also be able to understand problems where we did not understand them before, or even to see problems where we did not see them before (think, for example, of the ways in which feminist scholarship has helped us precisely to make problems visible). As a result, we may be able to envisage opportunities for action where we did not envisage them before. The cultural role of educational research is thus no less practical than the technical role. A key problem with the idea of evidence-based practice is that it simply overlooks the cultural option. It focuses on the production of means for given ends and reduces research questions "to the pragmatics of technical efficiency and effectiveness." It only has a technological expectation about research.

There are two other aspects of de Vries's distinction between the technical and the cultural role that are important for our discussion. The first point is that although the two roles can be distinguished from each other, this does not mean that they should necessarily be thought of as separate. On the one hand, de Vries shows that different interpretations often help us to see new problems and new possibilities for action and therefore can lead to different or more precise "technical" questions for further research. In this respect the cultural role of educational research can pave the way for the technical role. On the other hand, if research is successful in performing its technical role - if, in other words, research does bring about strategies and approaches that successfully solve problems - this may well convince us to see and understand the situation in terms of the framework that informs this particular approach. More often than not, therefore, the technical and the cultural approaches mutually inform and reinforce each other.

The foregoing may suggest that the technical and the cultural role are two options available to researchers to choose from. This, however, may not always be the case. De Vries argues that the role educational research can play depends to a large extent upon the micro- and macropolitical conditions under which researchers operate. In cases in which there is a strong consensus about the aims of education or, to look at it from a different angle, where the aims of education cannot be questioned, the only possible role for research is a technical role. When such a consensus does not exist, or when an existing consensus begins to break down, it becomes possible for research to play a cultural role by providing different interpretations of the situation.

This shows that whether research can play a technical or a cultural role does not solely depend upon the decisions and intentions of researchers but is influenced in a significant way by the environment in which researchers operate. De Vries connects this analysis with the idea of democracy. He suggests that a democratic society is a society in which social research is not restricted to a technical role but can also perform a cultural role. A democratic society is, in other words, characterized by the existence of an open and informed discussion about problem definitions and the aims and ends of our educational endeavors. Thus the fact that the whole discussion about evidence-based practice seems only to have technical expectations about the practical role of research is a worrisome sign from the point of view of democracy.

Conclusions

In this essay I have examined three key assumptions that underlie the idea of evidence-based education. I have examined the model of professional action that is implied in the idea of evidence-based education. I have argued that education cannot be understood as an intervention or treatment because of the noncausal and normative nature of educational practice and because of the fact that the means and ends in education are internally related. This implies that educational professionals need to make judgments about what is educationally desirable. Such judgments are by their very nature normative judgments. I have argued that to suggest that research about "what works" can replace such judgments not only implies an unwarranted leap from "is" to "ought," but also denies educational practitioners the right not to act according to evidence about "what works" if they judge that such a line of action would be educationally undesirable. The problem with evidence-based education, therefore, is not only that it is not sufficiently aware of the role of norms and values in educational decision making; the problem is that it also limits the opportunities for educational professionals to exert their judgment about what is educationally desirable in particular situations. This is one instance in which the democratic deficit in evidence-based education becomes visible.

A similar issue became clear in the discussion about the epistemological assumptions of evidence-based practice. Using Dewey's practical epistemology, I showed that research cannot supply us with rules for action but only with hypotheses for intelligent problem solving. Research can only tell us what has worked in a particular situation, not what will work in any future situation. The role of the educational professional in this process is not to translate general rules into particular lines of action. It is rather to use research findings to make one's problem solving more intelligent. This not only involves deliberation and judgment about the means and techniques of education; it involves at the very same time deliberation and judgment about the ends of education - and this in a strict and conjugate relation with deliberation and judgment about the means. Dewey's practical epistemology therefore challenges the idea of evidence-based education in two ways: it challenges the way in which evidence-based education thinks about what research can achieve in relation to educational practice, and it challenges the technocratic model in which it is assumed that the discussion can and should be restrained to technical questions about "what works." Dewey's work helps us to see that normative questions are serious research questions in their own right - questions, moreover, that need to be part of a full, free, and open normative debate among all those with a stake in education (which includes not only those with a direct interest in education, but should include all citizens). The fact that the current matrix for evidence-based education does not seem to lead to such conclusions shows another dimension of the democratic deficit in the evidence-based approach.

This is why there is a real need to widen the scope of our thinking about the relation between research, policy, and practice, so as to make sure that the discussion is no longer restricted to finding the most effective ways to achieve certain ends but also addresses questions about the desirability of the ends themselves. With Dewey I wish to emphasize that we always need to ask the question of whether our ends are desirable given the way in which we might be able to achieve them. In education the further question that always needs to be asked is about the educational quality of our means, that is, about what students will learn from our use of particular means or strategies. From this perspective it is disappointing, to say the least, that the whole discussion about evidence-based practice is focused on technical questions - questions about "what works"- while forgetting the need for critical inquiry into normative and political questions about what is educationally desirable. If we really want to improve the relation between research, policy, and practice in education, we need an approach in which technical questions about education can be addressed in close connection with normative, educational, and political questions about what is educationally desirable. The extent to which a government not only allows the research field to raise this set of questions, but actively supports and encourages researchers to go beyond simplistic questions about "what works," may well be an indication of the degree to which a society can be called democratic. From the point of view of democracy, an exclusive emphasis on "what works" will simply not work.

Footnotes

3 Richard Pring, Philosophy of Educational Research (London and New York: Continuum, 2000), 1.

4 David Hargreaves, Teaching as a Research-Based Profession: Possibilities and Prospects (London: Teacher Training Agency, 1996). See also Hargreaves, David, "In Defence of Evidence-Based Teaching,"British Educational Research Journal 23, no. 4 (1997): 405- 419; and

7 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkid=30310000. See also Robert Coe, Finding Out What Works: Evidence-Based Education (Durham: Durham University School of Education, 2002).

8 See Hargreaves, "Revitalising Educational Research"; Oakley, "Social Science and Evidence-Based Everything"; and Cutspec, "Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap," 1-2.

10 See, for example, William J. Bennett, What Works: Research about Teaching and Learning (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1986).

11 See Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies," 15; and Cutspec, "Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap," 5.

12 See National Research Council, Scientific Research in Education, eds. Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002); Feuer et al., "Scientific Culture and Educational Research"; and Erickson, Frederick and Gutierrez, Kris, "Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research,"Educational Researcher 31, no. 8 (2002): 21- 24.

13 See Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies"; Slavin, Robert E., "Education Research Can and Must Address 'What Works' Questions," Educational Researcher 33, no. 1 (2004): 27- 28; and Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, eds.,Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002).

14 Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies," 16.

15 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30317000. See also Cutspec, "Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap," 2.

18 For example, Brighton, Malcolm, "Making our Measurements Count," Evaluation and Research in Education 14, no. 3/4 (2000): 124- 135; Martyn Hammersley, "Some Questions about Evidence-Based Practice in Education" (paper presented at the symposium on Evidence-Based Practice in Education at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, Leeds, England, September 2001. Retrieved fromhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001819.htm); ; ; Fox, "Opening Pandora's Box"; and

20 For examples of the discussion of "evidence-informed" practice, see Judy Sebba, "Developing Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice in Education" (paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, September 1999); and Hargreaves, "Revitalising Educational Research." For an example of a discussion of "evidence-influenced" practice, see Nutley, Davies, and Walter, "Evidence-Based Policy and Practice."

21 Greenhalgh, Trisha and Worrall, Jennifer G., "From EBM to CSM: The Evolution of Context Sensitive Medicine," Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 3, no. 2 (1997): 105; Michael Eraut, "Practice Based Evidence," inEvidence-Based Policy and Practice, eds. Gary Thomas and Richard Pring (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2003);

22 Slavin, "Evidence-Based Educational Policies," 16.

23 Hans Thiersch, "Die hermeneutisch-pragmatische Tradition der Erziehungswissenschaft" [The Hermeneutic-Pragmatic Tradition in Science], in Die Entwicklung der Erziehungswissenschaft, eds. Hans Thiersch, Horst Ruprecht, and Ulrich Hermann (München: Juventa, 1978), 11-108; Siebren Miedema, Kennen en Handelen. Bijdragen aan het Theorie-Praktijk Debat in de Opvoedingswetenschap [Knowledge and Action: A Contribution to the Discussion of the Relationship Between Theory and Practice in Educational Science] (Amersfoort and Leuven: Acco, 1986); and Ellen Lagemann, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

24 Sackett, David L., Rosenberg, William M.C., Gray, J.A. Muir, Haynes, R. Brian, and Richardson, W. Scott, "Evidence Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn't," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 71- 72; David L. Sackett, W. Scott Richardson, William M.C. Rosenberg, and R. Brian Haynes,Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (London: Churchill Livingstone, 1997); and Huw Davies, Sandra M. Nutley, and Peter C. Smith, eds., What Works: Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in the Social Services (Bristol: Policy Press, 2000).

25 See Hammersley, "On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures"; and Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational."

27 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30317000.

28 See http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk./EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page/rell/about_evidence.htm.

29 Oliver and Conole, "Evidence-Based Practice and E-learning in Higher Education," 388.

30 Burton, Mark and Chapman, Melanie J., "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services," Journal of Learning Disabilities 8, no. 1 (2004): 60; and Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 335-338.

31 See Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational," 558, 560.

32 I would argue that the assumptions are only valid if one takes a rather mechanistic look at the human being and if one assumes that "health" is an unproblematic and uncontested notion. For a further discussion about the differences between education and medicine, see Davies, "What Is Evidence-Based Education?"; Evans and Benefield, "Systematic Reviews of Educational Research"; and Hammersley, "On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures."

35 See also Biesta, Gert, "How Difficult Should Education Be?" Educational Theory 51, no. 4 (2001): 385- 400; Gert Biesta, "'Mind the gap!' Communication and the Educational Relation," inNo Education without Relation, eds. Charles Bingham and Alexander M. Sidorkin (New York: Peter Lang, 2004).

36 See Burton and Chapman, "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services," 60-61; Gert Biesta, Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future (Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers, 2006).

37 See also Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?"

38 Carr, David, "Practical Enquiry, Values and the Problem of Educational Theory," Oxford Review of Education 18, no. 3 (1992): 249.

40 Ibid., 248. See also Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational."

41 See Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), particularly book VI.

42 Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 340.

45 See also Burton and Chapman, "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services."

46 For some exceptions, see Berliner, "Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All"; Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?"; and Burton and Chapman, "Problems of Evidence Based Practice in Community Based Services."

47 Gert Biesta and Nicholas C. Burbules, Pragmatism and Educational Research (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003).

48 Sackett et al., "Evidence Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn't," 72-73.

50 See http://www.cemcentre.org/renderpage.asp?linkID=30317001.

51 John Dewey, "Epistemology" (1911), in John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924, vol. 6, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978), 441.

55 Ralph W. Sleeper, The Necessity of Pragmatism: John Dewey's Conception of Philosophy (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986).

56 See Biesta, "Kunskapande Som ett Sätt att Handla."

57 Dewey, Experience and Nature, 29.

63 Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct, 132.

65 See Biesta and Burbules, Pragmatism and Educational Research, 48-50 and 92-100, for a detailed discussion of what this implies for the way in which we understand the objects of knowledge and the objects of perception.

67 For Dewey's views on verification, see Biesta and Burbules, Pragmatism and Educational Research, 68-71.

70 Larry Hickman, John Dewey's Pragmatic Technology (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).

71 Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 343.

73 See Willinsky, "Education and Democracy"; and Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?"

74 See Gerard H. de Vries, De Ontwikkeling van Wetenschap [The Development of Science] (Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff, 1990).

75 See Sanderson, "Is It 'What Works' that Matters?" 332 and 340.

76 Evans and Benefield, "Systematic Reviews of Educational Research," 539.

77 See, for example, Elliott, "Making Evidence-Based Practice Educational"; and Simons, "Evidence-Based Practice: Panacea or Over Promise?"

78 See Hammersley, "On 'Systematic' Reviews of Research Literatures," 550.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK Sophia Krzys Acord for her indispensable help with conducting a literature review on evidence-based education.

GERT BIESTA is Professor of Educational Theory at the School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU England, UK, and Visiting Professor at Örebro University, Sweden; e-mail <g.biesta@exeter.ac.uk>. His primary areas of scholarship are philosophy of education, the philosophy and methodology of educational research, democratic education, pragmatism, and lifelong learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WHY "WHAT WORKS" WON'T WORK: EVIDENCE‐BASED PRACTICE AND THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract In this essay, Gert Biesta provides a critical analysis of the idea of evidence-based practice and the ways in which it has been promoted and implemented in the field of education, focusing on the tension between scientific and democratic control over educational practice and research.

# data[].attributes.headline
McKnight, L. and Morgan, A., 2020. A broken paradigm? What education needs to learn from evidence-based medicine. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), pp.648-664

# data[].attributes.subject
McKnight, L. and Morgan, A., 2020. A broken paradigm? What education needs to learn from evidence-based medicine. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), pp.648-664

# data[].attributes.headline
Connolly, P., C. Keenan, and K. Urbanska. 2018. “The Trials of Evidence-Based Practice in Education: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials in Education Research1980–2016.” Educational Research 60 (3): 276–291. doi:10.1080/00131881.2018.1493353.

# data[].attributes.subject
Connolly, P., C. Keenan, and K. Urbanska. 2018. “The Trials of Evidence-Based Practice in Education: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials in Education Research1980–2016.” Educational Research 60 (3): 276–291. doi:10.1080/00131881.2018.1493353.

# data[].attributes.body
Education: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials in Education Research

1980–2016.” Educational Research 60 (3): 276–291. doi:10.1080/00131881.2018.1493353.

# data[].attributes.headline
ALDRIDGE, D. BIESTA, G. FILIPPAKOU, O. and WAINWRIGHT, E. (2018) Why the nature of educational research should remain contested. British Educational Research Journal. 44(1) pp. 1-4 

# data[].attributes.subject
ALDRIDGE, D. BIESTA, G. FILIPPAKOU, O. and WAINWRIGHT, E. (2018) Why the nature of educational research should remain contested. British Educational Research Journal. 44(1) pp. 1-4 

# data[].attributes.headline
Wood, E. A. (2022). Play and learning in early childhood education: tensions and challenges. Child Studies, (1), 15–26. https://revistas.uminho.pt/index.php/childstudies/article/view/4124

# data[].attributes.subject
Wood, E. A. (2022). Play and learning in early childhood education: tensions and challenges. Child Studies, (1), 15–26. https://revistas.uminho.pt/index.php/childstudies/article/view/4124

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.alternative_text
Wood, E. A. (2022). Play and learning in early childhood education: tensions and challenges. Child Studies, (1), 15–26. https://doi.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Galbraith, J. (2022). A prescription for play: Developing early childhood preservice teachers' pedagogies of play. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 1-21 

# data[].attributes.subject
Galbraith, J. (2022). A prescription for play: Developing early childhood preservice teachers' pedagogies of play. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 1-21 

# data[].attributes.headline
Albin-Clark, J. and Archer, N. 2023 Resisting the marginalisation of children’s right to play

# data[].attributes.subject
Albin-Clark, J. and Archer, N. 2023 Resisting the marginalisation of children’s right to play

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You searched for Albin-Clark - EERA Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.

# data[].attributes.headline
ALBIN-CLARK, J., 2022. The Right to Play: Are young children free to determine their own actions? . Blog [online]. Available from: 

# data[].attributes.subject
ALBIN-CLARK, J., 2022. The Right to Play: Are young children free to determine their own actions? . Blog [online]. Available from: 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I recently saw an art exhibition with Mark Titchener that got me thinking about how far young children are free to determine their own actions.

Previously my research interests have been about how teachers observe playful learning ( Albin-Clark, 2021, 2022) and develop critical awareness about children as holders of rights ( Albin-Clark and Archer, 2021).

This year I have started to work with a colleague, the children's rights scholar Professor Carol Robinson in the research network Children's Rights and Wellbeing. After Covid-19 lockdowns, it is particularly urgent that children understand their rights to voice concerns when they have felt insecure ( Robinson, 2021).

Teachers act as gatekeepers to children accessing their entitlement to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). One article pertinent to teachers of young children is Article 31, 'the right to play'. In play, children make decisions about who, what, where and how their experience takes place ( Albin-Clark, 2022).

I know that teachers value the opportunity to consider how play is related to teaching, so much so that a current student on my Master of Arts (MA) module 'The power of playful pedagogies', made me stop in my tracks. She named her recent submission: Why is play a forbidden word?

In schooling, teachers can feel tension between their own personal ethos and the prevailing policy environment. But, in this area the answer may be a simple one; that teachers can not only say the word 'play' but also protect pockets of time and space where they can let children play ( Sahlberg and Doyle, 2019).

Also, teachers, students and researchers have a role in protecting children's access to their right to play and have their voices heard ( Robinson, Quennerstedt and Phillips, 2018).

Circling back to Mark Titchener's provocation, it matters now more than ever that children, including young children, can determine their own actions. It seems to me that a rather brilliant way of children determining their own actions and expressing themselves within a learning environment is through play.

Dr Jo Albin-Clark is Senior Lecturer in Early Years Education at Edge Hill University.

Image by LaterJay Photography from Pixabay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Right to Play: Are young children free to determine their own actions? - Institute for Social Responsibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Jo Albin-Clark I recently saw an art exhibition with Mark Titchener that got me thinking about how far young children are free to determine their own actions. Previously my research interests have been about how teachers observe playful learning (Albin-Clark, 2021, 2022) and develop critical awareness about children as holders of rights (Albin-Clark and [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
UNITED NATIONS (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 

# data[].attributes.subject
UNITED NATIONS (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 

# data[].attributes.body
Reference like this : UNITED NATIONS (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [online]. Available from: https://www https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2021]

# data[].attributes.headline
Gleave, J. and Cole-Hamilton, I., 2012. A literature review on the effects of a lack of play on children’s lives. England: Play England.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gleave, J. and Cole-Hamilton, I., 2012. A literature review on the effects of a lack of play on children’s lives. England: Play England.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rusli, N.A.B., NAGY, A.V., MEZŐ, K., MEZŐ, F., Rusli, N.A.B. and Varga Nagy, A., The Reggio Emilia Approach to Special Needs Children. KÜLÖNLEGES BÁNÁSMÓD, p.149. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Rusli, N.A.B., NAGY, A.V., MEZŐ, K., MEZŐ, F., Rusli, N.A.B. and Varga Nagy, A., The Reggio Emilia Approach to Special Needs Children. KÜLÖNLEGES BÁNÁSMÓD, p.149. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Sills-Busio, D.M., 2022. Early educators’ perspective and experience using pedagogical documentation to support individualizing for children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 43(2), pp.265-290. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sills-Busio, D.M., 2022. Early educators’ perspective and experience using pedagogical documentation to support individualizing for children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 43(2), pp.265-290. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Mariane Falco & Tizuko Morchida Kishimoto (2022) Pedagogical documentation for a more inclusive early childhood education, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30:2, 251-264, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2022.2045334

# data[].attributes.subject
Mariane Falco & Tizuko Morchida Kishimoto (2022) Pedagogical documentation for a more inclusive early childhood education, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30:2, 251-264, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2022.2045334

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2045334

# data[].attributes.headline
McNair, L.J. and Powell, S., 2021. Friedrich Froebel: a path least trodden. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7-8), pp.1175-1185.

# data[].attributes.subject
McNair, L.J. and Powell, S., 2021. Friedrich Froebel: a path least trodden. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7-8), pp.1175-1185.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vintimilla, & Pacini-Ketchabaw. (2020). Weaving pedagogy in early childhood education: on openings and their foreclosure. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(5), 628-641. 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1817235

# data[].attributes.subject
Vintimilla, & Pacini-Ketchabaw. (2020). Weaving pedagogy in early childhood education: on openings and their foreclosure. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(5), 628-641. 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1817235

# data[].attributes.headline
Fairchild, N. and Mikuska, É., 2024. String Figuring young children's perspectives of quality in English early childhood education and care. British Educational Research Journal.

# data[].attributes.subject
Fairchild, N. and Mikuska, É., 2024. String Figuring young children's perspectives of quality in English early childhood education and care. British Educational Research Journal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Smith, P.K. and StGeorge, J.M., 2023. Play fighting (rough-and-tumble play) in children: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. International Journal of Play, 12(1), pp.113-126.

# data[].attributes.subject
Smith, P.K. and StGeorge, J.M., 2023. Play fighting (rough-and-tumble play) in children: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. International Journal of Play, 12(1), pp.113-126.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lüken, M.M., 2023. Young children’s self-initiated pattern-making during free play. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, pp.1-21.

# data[].attributes.subject
Lüken, M.M., 2023. Young children’s self-initiated pattern-making during free play. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, pp.1-21.