Importance of Play Pedagogy in the Curriculum for Young Children's Learning and Development - Essay Example

? Importance of Play Pedagogy in the Curriculum for Young Children's Learning and Development Introduction The role of play in the fostering of the social, intellectual, psychological and physical development of children cannot be overstated and this is supported by evidence from extensive research by various bodies and individual. According to, Play England, play not only improves children’s physical and mental health but increase their problem solving skills as well as making them more independent and creative. Notwithstanding that, parents and educators categorize play and learning as contrasts, the underlying assumption is that play is an activity that is essentially unimportant, trivial and devoid of any meaningful propose. It is seen as a manifestation of immaturity and children are expected to outgrow it and move on to more “grown up” activities (Moyles 1994). Studies investigating the relationship between play and learning as well as the role it plays concerning child development both mental and social have however produced ample evidence and theoretical reasoning to prove the aforementioned presupposition to be incorrect. Today more than ever before, the role of play is recognized by policy makers, researchers and education developers to be critical in the intellectual and emotional wellbeing of children (Kennedy and Barblett 2010). Retrospectively, the educational community in Europe has increasingly taken cognizance of the need for quality pedagogy in early childhood education to prepare children for both academic pursuits as well as social integration. This paper discusses the importance of play pedagogy in the curriculum by examining the background of play in education, in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), the various forms of play and finally its developmental benefits with a view to justify its inclusion in education systems. To start with, the key terms are defined so as to provide the reader with a sense of contextual uniformity as this term represent the recurring themes in the entire; pedagogy can be loosely described as a method through which knowledge and/or skills are imparted to an individual especially in respect to academic and theoretical pursuits. The Curriculum on the other hand is a preset framework that outlines all what learners should be taught the quality and to some extent the methods that should be used, it however provides allowance for the teacher to act flexible based on the education setting or context. Most definitions of play tend to emphasize on the fact that it is a non-serious activity done for enjoyment especially for children, bearing this general definition in mind, one immediately sees why the idea of uniting it to pedagogy and curriculum would be a challenge to many. Pedagogy is seen as a formal and serious construct and there traditional schools f though imagined that the only rile lay would serve in pedagogy was disruptive as opposed to constructive. Therefore this ensured that play was separated from the curriculum and by extension pedagogy, however studies by constructivists such as Vygostky and Piaget have in the past few decades revolutionize this perception. Background Archaeological and anthropological records show evidence of the presence of play, dating back to the prehistoric times, since in various sites, archaeologist have discovered several items that are attributed to a playful human history. This evidence includes dice gaming sticks and bones all, which can be traced as far back to the Palaeolithic era (Fox 1977). Excavations in countries like China have discovered miniature metal and clay toys that are presumed to have been used by children, in addition there in the Egyptian temples there are drawings of adults and children actively engaged in play. Historical and anthropological studies in to the nature of the European childhood have revealed that like today, the classical Greek and roman cultures valued play and comparative analysis indicate that much of what is practiced today evolved from the ex post facto foundations (Kolb and Kolb 2010). Research has shown that medieval Europe embraced and encouraged play as a part of pedagogy and ideas such as developmentally appropriate education or play-based pedagogy were developed initially by thinkers of the era. Educators such as Martin Luther and John Locke were some of the earliest proponents of play-based education and the participation and enabling of play by adults. In the modern era individuals such as Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel supported and applied comparable concepts, for example, Pestalozzi opened a foundation for children in Switzerland in 1805. On the other hand, Froebel opened the first kindergarten in Germany and is said to be the first to apply the word playground to define and play environment designated for children and developed by adults for this exclusive purpose (Maynard 2007). More recent studies have shown that in the 20th century, the British children were singing and playing in more or less the same way their predecessors did in regard to nursery rhymes and games. Policy and pedagogy Before the 60s, play was often seen as an unimportant endeavor and consequently received little formal attention both in research and practice in school curriculum, however this changed in the 60s when in the Piagets research became popularly accepted in the UK wherein he postulated that curriculum should be children centric. The Plowden report which advocated for honoring the child’s need was implemented and the child was for the first time in UK history formally viewed as the center of the learning process. However EYE turned out to be a politically flexible issue and 20 years after the Plowden report had been integrated a new conservative government “changed back” the system and once again relegated the child to the peripheral from the center of learning. The labor party however took over again and resumed their previous position of child centered learning , during this time new policies were developed in policy documents such as; every child matters and the early years foundation stage. The government took considerably more interest in the handling of educational affairs than it had in retrospect both in the designing and implementation of curriculum (Anning, 2010). One of the merging policies was the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) which emphasized on the need for adding a valuable childhood education which was designated to start from the birth to age five, one of the main findings in the concerned studies was that the best learning activities are those children chose for themselves (Sylva et al, 2004:37). Play and pedagogy Piaget and Vygostky are the two leading child psychologists that have contributed a great deal to the present theoretical understating of play and pedagogy, in 1962, Piaget put forward as conceptualization of play in categorising them into three stages that are determined by the child’s level of thinking (French, 2007). He suggested that there exist a dialogue between children and the internal environment which mediated their transcendence into the external world. When children play they invariably form schemas which they gradually use in the formal and social learning process to assimilate and synthesise new knowledge which helps them understand their world. Different schools have various ways of setting and presenting education goals for children, the most common way to achieve these is to underline that skills and knowledge children are supposed to acquire before the leave the early education setting. However, some such as the Swedish curriculum differ since it does not require that goals are met but only that they strive to be achieved, therefore the teachers are not expected to pressure their pressure children to achieve unrealistic expectations. These goals are not only provided for in the curricular but also in the teacher mind, as they must strive to see possibilities for learning everywhere in the normal environment of the child (Ridgway and Quinones 2012). Therefore, they needs must apply themselves to exploiting the possibilities wherever they may be found in the previously mentioned environment and they also must contribute to creating and enriching the environment by proving challenging situations for their charges. It is important that teachers are aware of the fact that preschool children are essentially different from older school children in that they are not yet socialized enough in a school environment to interact with the teacher in a formal school/teacher-centric setting (Wood 2010). Therefore, the preschool teacher must tune in to their world; these children are by nature active and playful and instead of changing this to make them fit into the formal mode of pedagogy, and the teacher should adjust themselves to the children’s needs (Samuelsson and Carlsson 2008). The very nature of children’s inherent need to play puts demands on teachers to make them interested I certain objects and concepts which will later be instrumental in adult learning, to do this the teacher must enter the child’s world and introduce these content at their level in the form of play. On a psychological level, children unlike adults will rarely make a distinction between learning and play activities; however, they will automatically prefer play to learning. Therefore the teacher has much to gain by integrating the two concepts since by so doing they encourage the child to take on learning experiences with the same enthusiasm they play and this is a productive and progressive approach to learning (Pramling & Asplund 2008). Research has established five basic types of play categorized as physical play, play with objects, symbolic, social dramatic play and games with rules, it has been postulated that all activities under human play can be in some way in one of the classes. Educator’s needs must put to consideration the developmental roles that are presented in the different types of play as each promotes a range of cognitive and intellectual developments which must be taken to consideration to facilitate pedagogy (Armstrong 2006). Piaget’s cognitive theory has factored in substantially in the categorisation of stages of play considering that the first three are framed in the premises of his stages of child development although they are models along Freud’s model. Types of play Piaget’s theory of cognitive learning can be used to justify the need to inculcate play into pedagogy, he defines schemas as a combination of cognitive representations through which children and adults interpret and transcend their world and accommodate different situations (Jean, 1962). Physical play This is the earliest and most universal kind of play which is also practiced by most animal species especially mammals and primates, in human children, it includes interactive exercise such as jumping, kicking wrestling or rough and tumble with friends and parents. The manipulation of toys as well as other fine motor skill exercise such as threading and sewing are included, this kind of play normally begins at around age 2 and occupies 20% of their time between then at around age 5. This is important in helping the child build strength and endurance as well as develop a range of sensory motor skills particularly hand-eye body coordination. The rough and tumble aspect of physical play is the most extensively studied (Reed and Brown 2000); further, a 2002 study carried out in the USA in which 157 families were sampled, it turned out that children who engage with their parents in physically interactive activities developed considerably higher competence in preschool than their peers who did not. Another instrumental figure in the study of play and pedagogy is Sutton-Smith; a teacher and child psychologist takes and interdisciplinary approach to play by inculcating history of play, cultural studies, research in psychology and education. He interprets play as an all-inclusive activity that should encompass play in all its form ranging from sports to gambling and even nonsense (Sutton-Smith, 2001). He specifically alludes to the rough and tumble which is also evident in primate interaction and posits that young children use it to show dominance just like the lower animals. Therefore, physical play has a crucial role in the education of children since it is not only and avenue through which learning can be can be channelled, but also as a means by which their learning abilities can be enhanced. Play with objects concerns the child’s development as an explorer and scientist in their immediate environment, this is the earliest form of play and it begins as soon as the infant is able to grasp objects (Rocissano 1982). Their investigative methodologies initially include biting, grasping rubbing hitting or even dropping among others. This likely to occur during Freud’s sensory motor stage, from around 18 months they develop a sense of order and try to arrange and classify objects and by the time they are four they can build and construct with toys. A study carried out in 2005 on play techniques showed that the amount play and explorative activities in which pre-schoolers engaged in in a year was directly proportional to their manifest ability to solve both concrete and abstract problems in a school environment (Pellegrini and Gustafson 2005). In addition, play with objects can be associated with private speech which is imperative in helping children maintain an attention span as well as keep their goals in mind for longer and this ultimately translates into their becoming better problem solvers and strategic in their thinking. Vygosyky propose that through play, children acquire the aptitude for application of a variety of symbolic representations in which different symbols carry different social cultural meanings, through symbolic ply children lean to code and decode these meanings (1978). Through symbolic play, children can apply a variety of semiotic systems to acquire and develop language, reading skills and using a variety of visual and audio media such as painting and drawing as well as music and others (Hobson, Lee & Hobson 2009). The cultural historic theory suggests that human activities occur within a cultural context whereby language and other forms of symbolic interactions usually mediate this context (John-Steiner & Mahn 2006). Symbolic play is key in helping children develop technical skills and as such express and reflect on their daily experiences ideas as well as feelings, in the long-term, this play eventually develops and the children are able to make new words and enjoy playing with words (Casby 1997). Moreover, universal rhyme schemes present children’s way of connecting music with words; thus, when children are encouraged to engage in this play, their appreciation for language in terms of puns increases. Symbolic play also bolsters their linguistic acuity and in a school situation, such skills are invaluable in helping children develop literacy and competently interact with leaning material (Christie and Roskos, 2006). The fourth kind of play is the pretence and social dramatic play prevalent in the urbanized and technologically developed world where there is a lot to be mimicked that is presented through the mass media, according to Whitebread and Jameson (2010), it commences around the age of one and it is among the most researched forms of play. Pretence play has been proven to have a close connection with development of acute cognitive as well as academic and socialization abilities (Carruthers 2002). Vygotskys social cultural theory significantly contributes to the recognition of a play as a critical aspect of pedagogy, this is he suggests that for make believe play is a critical part of children’s development of social cultural competence. The suggested that the pretend play has a great deal of influence on the children’s self-regulation and representation since it involves, among other thing a high degree of private speech (Bergen, 2002). It is often defined as free play although it has been proven to force the children to exert the greatest demands on their self-restraint since they needs must follow and abide to the social code governing the character that they want to imitate (Berk, Mann and Ogan, 2006). Games with Rules are the last category of play, whereby children naturally like to try to make sense of their environment and done of the ways by which they achieve this is by making up or following rules (Snipes 2003). Consequently, from a very young age children enjoy game that have rules and they often make up their own games or try to manipulate the rules of existing games either in an attempt to adjust them to circumstances or to make the game more interesting (Saifer 2010). These include hide and seek, throwing and catching, board games such as monopoly and checkers as in addition to a variety of digital and automated games such as Xbox. These games are instrumental in helping children understand the importance of rules as well as contributing to a range of social skills concerning sharing and respecting others people space and obeying rules (Gros 2007). The propensity of children to follow rules also helps them develop critical thinking which is often useful when they are learning academic subjects such as math’s and sciences since they will have acquired the ability to establish, identify and follow rules (DeVries, 2006). Contrary to popular belief, a positive connection has been scientifically proven between children playing computer games, which are a major part of this category due to modern technological development and their intelligence (Morgan and Kennewell 2005). Apparently, well-designed games actually teach children how to use critical thinking to solve a variety of problems and this hones their problem solving skills that are useful to them in their academic pursuits (Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread 2003). Benefits of play to children’s learning and development As aforementioned one of the key differences between Vgostky and Piaget is that the formers theory of cognitive development is focused on universal self-development of a child in the leaning process. Therefore when applied to play and in the same context life, Piaget would argue that a child forms schema for the bigger picture that is adult leaning and by extension adult life, Vygotsky however holds that learning is pre-eminently derived from the social environment. The connection of his theory to play is exemplified by Shaffer (1996), he proposes an analogy in which a girl tries to complete a puzzle but is unable to, her father however sits with her and assist her until she is finally able to complete it on he own and even move on to a more complex one. While this theoretical approaches may be viewed differently, in respect to play they share a common denominator in that both of them promote learning trough problem solving. When a child is “taught: how to solve a puzzle, there is an interaction between Piagetian and Vygoskian theories since one can also claim by teaching her, the father is helping her widen her schema, accommodate and assimilate to new ideas. Problem Solving and Mathematical skills are developed through play as previously mentioned in the discussion about play styles, various forms of play weigh in in helping the learner develop their skills in problem solving logic and language (Broadhead 2010). For example, when a child engages in games such as building blocks and puzzles in addition to enhancing their sensory motor skills, they provide basics for a child’s acquisition of a myriad other skills. They may ask how tall they can make a block tower or a sand castle and in this interaction they end up leaning or understanding new mathematic concepts. This experience is more valuable owing to the fact that it is self-directed they will be likely to remember it longer unlike what they are made to memorize in class (Williams-Siegfredsen 2007). Play is student centered Piaget’s constructionist theory proposes that the play should be as free form adult interference as possible and this was been popularly viewed as the justification a ‘laissez-faire’ free play curriculum in which the decisions and choices are made by children with minimum adult input(1969). This is replicated in play pedagogy although not alienating the teacher as explicitly as it would seem since play pedagogy has to be specifically structured by a professional teacher to meet the curriculum objectives. It is universally accepted that the best and most progressive kind of learning is student centered, however achieving full leaner centric leaning environment is difficult in view of the fact that most teaching methodologies require the teacher be involved in a controlling capacity (Seddon and Biasutti 2010). Notably, play is the best embodiment of student centred learning, since it does not even always need a teacher to facilitate it, and when it does, their role is often minor. When children play, they have the opportunity to develop skills and learning and an environment, which they wholly control such as a playground and in playrooms during recess or other free time. In play, children are allowed an avenue through which to explore and engage in independent learning and therefore, despite the challenge of balancing classroom and external play in the curriculum, it is important that policy makers and teacher work in consultation to develop systems that will enable children get the best of both worlds. However this is often construed to be in contradiction to Vygotskys social Constructivism theory under which the role of adults is highly valued since it is presumed that children will learn best if they copy adults. Vygotskys claim for the involvement of teachers in pay is supported by a study carried out on the impedance of teacher and student communication, it was found that the process promoted SST sustained shared thinking through which children and teacher can interact in a balance context when the teacher enters the child’s pretend world and thereby gaining a useful platform on which to construct their practice of SST (Trudell, 2010). However despite the difference it does not mean that Vgostky’s and Piagets theories are mutually exclusive since teach is keyed towards marginally different aspects of the learning process therefore it does not mean that a contraction between them amounts to the logical negation of one or both. Play promotes social development in that in an early childhood classroom, great emphasis is placed on the quest to assist learners develop language as well as experience positive socialisation with their classmates and teachers. While there are teacher who set aside time specifically to teach social skills, others reinforce them through a series of systems designed to manage behaviour notwithstanding that both methods are productive, the students require a different environment in which to practice and apply the skills. This is where play comes in handy; through play students can enact and thus reinforce the skills they have acquired, for example when children play act a departmental store in class they are not just honing their skills in dealing with money but also social skills in dealing with people. Taking cognizance of the fact that school is where children are expected to develop most of these skills, paly invariably emerges as a crucial part of pedagogy. Play deepens understanding An effective teacher creates a hook by having their learners read informative books, looks at interesting pictures or explores certain topics as in groups, these methods have been proven quite effective and they are widely used. Nevertheless, learners increase their comprehension of topics and subjects even further if they are allowed a chance to interact with the concepts in hands on way, this is the learning and teaching methodology that play exemplifies. In his theory of social cultural learning, Vygotsky is cognizant of the fact that learning needs must occur in a social context and the two cannot be alienated from each other in as far as learning is taking place. It then stands to reason that the best pedagogical strategies are those that bring together students and facilitate the distribution of knowledge collaboratively through various types of group activity. This can be evinced if one considers the hypothesis below; a kindergarten teacher is teaching their class about weather changes has the option of asking them to describe the different weather patterns or having them look at picture books. However, a different approach and one that would likely get them to pay most attention and retain the information could involve play. For example, the classroom could be turned into a mini weather station as the learners take turns to read the weather and describe various weather conditions in an interactive way. The learner would not only further their understanding of the concept but the will new knowledge directly albeit in a make-believe environment and this will help authenticate the educational experience for the children (Vygotsky, 1980). Challenges to the institution of play in pedagogy Recently a mother in New York sued her daughter’s preschool demanding it returns her $19,000 tuition fee because they had failed to prepare her for entry into New York’s elite private schools, in the case, the preschool classroom was disdainfully described as just a big playroom. This case is an example of the many circumstances in which didactic learning has been elevated at the expense of play resulting from the desire by parents to ensure they start preparing their children for the competitive world of academia (Miller and Almon 2009). This scenario exemplifies the feelings of parents and society in many parts of the world where play is still seen as a secondary activity in the learn process, an indulgence more to make the children relax than to help them learn. In many UK school, teacher face the common challenge of integrating government policy on play while at the same time meeting their professional goals. Therefore, although the emphasis on EFYES remains teacher are harder pressed to provide the children with good grades which reception teachers know are difficult to achieve since they are mostly formal and non-student centred unlike play. While there is much emphasis on play based learning in the EYFS, teaches are faced with a great deal or pressure both from their superiors and the children’s parents to produce good grades and the result of trying to do so often eats up on time that should be used for play (Anning, 2010). Future of play From the evidence examined above, it is clear that role play in pedagogy has radically changed and diversified over time and there is little doubt that it will continue to do so in posterity. However it remains a serious challenge for anyone to make a definitive prediction of the future of the construct owing to the extensive differences in the implementation and integration of play in curriculum. For one despite policy regarding EYFE, many teacher do not spend as much time as they should assisting or supervising play because they fear, rightfully so, that it will negatively affect the measurable output form their learner which in the paper grades. This has created a serious imbalance within the in EFYE and EYE provision especially between schools that allocate different times to play and formal leaning, I future this can only be resolved by deliberate action form the government. For one, it should recognize the underlying contradiction in the double demands which teachers are faced with, on one hand they are expected to produce competitive paper grades and on the other they should focus on play. However since only a few teaches have the skills to balance policy should for on training of teachers and formulate regulation that dictate the amount of time that should be allocated to formal or play centred pedagogy to create balance which may be impossible as long as the management is do eat the discretion of individual schools. Conclusion Ultimately, while there are those who hold that didactic learning is more important than play, empirical and theoretical knowledge proves beyond any doubt that children benefit a great deal from play especially when applied creatively by the teacher. An examination of the various types of play reveals that from the time they are born a child will try to engage in some sort of play and it is through such activity that they interact with the world and independently develop, social, cognitive intellectual and other skills. Therefore it is essential that institutions and individual engaged in pedagogy take to consideration the benefits of play and create time space and opportunity for children to play since in the long run, they will be better students and more balanced in terms of social cognitive advancement if they have ample chances to play as opposed to being continuously drilled. References Anning, A. (2010) Play and legislated curriculum. In J. Moyles (ed) The Excellence of Play. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Armstrong , T. 2006. The Best Schools: How Human Development Research Should Inform Educational Practice. Early Childhood Education Programs: Play. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development-ASCD Publishers. Bergen, D.2002.The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Journal of Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4(1). Berk, L.E., Mann, T.D. and Ogan, A.T. 2006. Make-Believe Play: Wellspring for Development of Self-Regulation. In D.G. Singer, R.M. Golinkoff and K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth. (pp. 74-100). Oxford: Oxford University Press Broadhead, P. (2010) Cooperative Play and Learning from Nursery to Year One in Broadhead, P., Howard, J., and Wood, E. (2010) Play and Learning in the Early Years. London, Sage Publications.  Carruthers, P., 2002. Human creativity: Its cognitive basis, its evolution, and its connections with childhood pretence. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53(2), pp. 225-249. Casby, M.W., 1997. Symbolic play of children with language impairment: A critical review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40(3), pp. 468-79. Christie, J.F. and Roskos, K.A. 2006. Standards, Science, and the Role of Play in Early Literacy Education. In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 57–73).New York: Oxford University Press. DeVries, R. 2006. Games with Rules. Play from Birth to Twelve, 2nd Ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Fox, S. J. 1977. A paleoanthropological approach to recreation and sporting behaviors. In B. A. Tindall and P. Stevens (Eds.), Studies in the anthropology of play. West Point, N.Y.: Leisure Press. French, G. (2007), Children’s early learning and development, The Framework for Early Learning. Research paper NCCA. Gros, B. 2007. Digital Games in Education: The Design of Games-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), pp. 23-38. Hobson, R.P., LEE, A. and Hobson, J.A., 2009. Qualities of Symbolic Play Among Children with Autism: A Social-Developmental Perspective. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), pp. 12-22. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. 2011. Sociocultural approaches to learning and development:A Vygotskian Framework. Educational Psychologist .Volume 31, Issue 3-4 Kennedy, A. and Barblett, L. 2010. Learning and teaching through play Supporting the Early Years Learning Framework Research. Research in Practice Series Volume 17 Number 3 Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A., 2010. Learning to play, playing to learn. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), pp. 26-50. Maynard, T. (2007) ‘Forest Schools in Great Britain: an initial exploration’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (4) pp.320-331. Miller, E. and Almon, J. 2009. Summary and Recommendations of Crisis in the. Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. Morgan, A. and Kennewell, S.2005. The Role of Play in the Pedagogy of ICT. Journal of Education and Information Technologies 10:3, 177–188. Moyles, J. (ed.). 1994.The Excellence of Play (2nd edn). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Pellegrini, A. D., and Gustafson, K. 2005. The nature of play: Great apes and humans. New York: Guilford Press. Jean, P. 1962.Play Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pramling, S, I. and Asplund, C, M. 2008. The playing learning child: Towards pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623-641. Reed, T. and Brown, M., 2000. The expression of care in the rough and tumble play of boys. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), pp. 104-116. Ridgway, A and Quinones, G. 2012. How do Early Childhood Students Conceptualize Play-Based Curriculum? Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Volume 37 (12) Article 4. Rocissano, L., 1982. The Emergence of Social Conventional Behavior: Evidence from Early Object Play. Social Cognition,1(1), pp. 50-69. Saifer, S. 2010, Play in the Life of a Modern Child; Higher Order Play and Its Rolein Development and Education. Psychological Science and Education, № 3 Samuelsson, I and Carlsson, M, A. 2008. The Playing Learning Child: Towards apedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 623–641 Seddon, F. and Biasutti, M., 2010. Strategies Students Adopted When Learning to Play an Improvised Blues in an E-Learning Environment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(2), pp. 147-167. Siraj-Blatchford, J. and Whitebread, D. 2003. Supporting Information and Communication Technology in the Early Years. Buckingham: Open University Press. SNIPES, R., 2003. "Knowing in the Doing": Observing Literacy Learning in Play. Childhood Education, 79(5), pp. 332. Sutton-Smith, B. (2001). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Trudell, P. 2010. A Place for play: Creating complex learning environments. In J, Moyles (ed) Thinking About Play: Developing a Reflective approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press Vygotsky, L. S. et al. 1980. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whitebread, D., and Jameson, H. 2010. Play beyond the Foundation Stage: story-telling, creative writing and self-regulation in able 6-7 year olds. In J. Moyles (Ed.), The Excellence of Play, 3rd Ed. (pp. 95-107). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Williams-Siegfredsen, J. 2007 ‘Developing pedagogically appropriate practice’. In: R. Austin (ed.), Letting the outside in: developing teaching and learning beyond the early years classroom. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books: pp: 63-73. Wood, E. (2010) 'Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning', pp9-26 in Broadhead, P., Howard, J. and Wood, E. (eds) Play and Learning in the Early Years: From research to practice. London: Sage. Read More