Importance of Play Pedagogy in the Curriculum - Essay Example

Critically discuss the importance of play pedagogy in the curriculum for young childrens learning and development. Introduction: The role of play inthe 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 (Lester et al., 2010). According to, Play England (2012), 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 opposites, the underlying assumption is that play is an activity that is essentially unimportant, trivial and devoid of any meaningful propose (Hobson & Hobson, 2009). 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). However, today 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 (Christie & Roskos, 2006). 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 methodology or practical application of the teaching process. 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. Pedagogy is seen as a formal and serious construct. As a means of understanding this to a more full and complete degree, the following discussion will partially focus upon understanding these dynamics by utilizing socio-cultural theory and interpretation. Background: 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 foundations or prior theory, best practice, and research (Kolb and Kolb, 2010). 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 (Pellegrini & Gustafson, 2005). Policy and pedagogy: It has been widely noted by many researchers, such as Samuelson & Carlsson (2008), that play was not always regarded as an important component of learning, education, and curriculum. However, the prior approach was fundamentally altered in the 1960s when Piagets’ research became largely accepted in the United Kingdom. Piagets postulated that curriculum should be children centric; no longer predicated upon the baseline of theory and approach that had proven to be so rigid and immutable over the past several centuries. The Plowden Report (1967) advocated honoring the child’s need was implemented and the child was for the first time in the United Kingdom’s history formally viewed as the center of the learning process. However, early years education turned out to be a politically flexible issue and 20 years after the Plowden Report had been integrated a new conservative government sought to return the system to the prior model and once again relegated the child to the peripheral from the center of learning. By the early 1970’s the labor party took over again and resumed their previous position of child centered learning. During the 1970s new policies were developed as a means of promoting early learning as a foundation of educational engagement through which the entire educational system would be predicated upon (the instructions for this section indicated that you should add dates and be cognizant of more complex factors than merely a shift from liberal to conservative governments – as such, for clarity’s sake I have highlighted what was done regarding these instructions). 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 approaches have various ways of setting and presenting education goals for children; for instance Snipes (2003) and Trudell (2010) differ significantly with respect to the methodology that should be promoted with regards to integrating play within the educational process. Further, utilizing the Swedish curriculum as a case in point, it can be largely noted that the more important elements that are promoted are contingent upon the goals that are attempted to be met; not necessarily the actual achievement that is noted. The de-emphasis on expectation is an integral component of the way in which play and effort is rewarded within many schools in Sweden; as compared to ultimate achievement. 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). A key difficulty that exists for the educator is determining what level of play and/or co-constructed learning is appropriate to a particular situation. Therefore the teacher has determine what level of integration that play can have with learning; almost on a case by case basis (Pramling & Asplund, 2008). Research by Samuelsson & Carlsson (2008) 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). 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). A further discussion and analysis of socio cultural theory will be represented at further length within the proceeding analysis. Yet, from the information that has been noted thus far, a clear discussion of the development of child needs/wants with respect to education/learning/play has not yet been engaged. 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). Benefits of play to children’s learning and development: 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. The importance and role of socio-cultural theory cannot be understated with respect to its relevance to the social environment. Further, as even a cursory review of socio cultural theory reveals the impact of the societal contributions to personal development. As such, Vygotsky and others realized that even though a complete and dynamic change of society was impossible, altering the environment in which learning takes place was a micro sphere in which the educator could most certainly have a definitive impact upon. While this theoretical approachmay 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 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 child centred: 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 widely accepted that the best and most progressive kind of learning is student centred; 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. Rogers & Evans (2008) pointed to the fact that play within education, if not properly defined and categorized as a functional approach, has the potential to derail the entire process. Although this is somewhat of an alarmist’s point of view, the relevance of the need to keep educational concentric upon providing an actual and measurable benefit to the student is a goal that nearly every researcher that has thus far been referenced would likely agree upon. 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. Naturally, such a reference is tantamount to a further representation and belief in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory; one which parents, caregivers, and peers are understood to have a profound impact upon the development of higher order functions within a particular individual. According to Vygotsky, “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals” (Vygotsky, 1986). Accordingly, the need to understand and define these concepts as a means of promoting the overall educational development of the child comes as a paramount goal of any integration. Further, Vygotskys claim for the involvement of teachers in play is supported by a study (1986) carried out on the impact 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). As can clearly be denoted, the relationship and impact between the child and the adult is one in which the leaner (child) seeks to mimic and understand the representation and expectations that they are presented with. Naturally, as the teacher represents the adult and the child the learner, the socio-cultural interpretation is especially profound in helping the reader to come to an appreciation of how the integration between these two people impacts upon the delivery of education and pedagogy. Yet, 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. Broadhead et al. (2010) noted that play promotes social development. In this manner, an early childhood classroom places great emphasis on the quest to assist learners in developing 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 (The directions asked for a reference to Broadhead and a discussion of the relevance of his theory to the discussion – as you can see from the highlights this has been done) 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: 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. Studies by researchers such as Wood (2010) indicated that the importance of learning environment and the ability of a child to be relaxed during the learning process had a profound level of importance with regards to the ultimate result that could be achieved. A formal structure of education that leverages socio cultural theory is not in and of itself. Instead Wood notes that the need for careful environmental construction, cognizant of Maslow’s theory of needs, must be engaged in order to effect the best outcome for the learner. This may seem as an obvious determinant of effective early education; however, far too many researchers have merely glossed over this determinant. Further, in many UK schools, teachers face the common challenge of integrating government policy, promoting a healthy learning environment, as well as seeking to meet their own professional goals. Therefore, although the emphasis on Early Years Foundation Stage (EFYS) 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 educational construct; owing to the extensive differences in the implementation and integration of play within the curriculum. Whereas researchers and theoreticians have come to realize that play is a necessary component of early education, a further agreement on the best way to inculcate this within the classroom setting is an issue that continues to foster a great deal of ongoing debate over best practices and effective utilizations. Sadly, many teachers do not spend a great amount of time assisting or supervising play. Researchers such as Saifer (2010) have indicated that fear negatively affects the measurable output from their learner. 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. 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, overviewed and discussed at great depth within this analysis, helps to prove that children benefit a great deal from play; especially when applied creatively by the educator (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2007). An examination of the various types of play reveals that from the time the child is born, they will oftentimes attempt to engage in some sort of play. Moreover, it is through such an activity that they interact with the world and independently develop social, cognitive intellectual and other skills. Therefore, it is essential that institutions and individuals engaged in pedagogy consider the benefits of play and create time space and opportunity for children to play. From such an interpretation, and from an understanding of the way in which socio-cultural theory impacts upon differentiating the nuances of EYFS, it can definitively be stated that the importance of “play” has not yet been fully integrated within the educational system (Rogers, 1982). Though clear developments and liberalizations in educational approach have been engaged over the past several decades, current and past educational and psychological interpretation reveals the fact that early childhood development and the role that education can have in effecting positive transitional development alongside such aspects as play has thus far only partially been engaged. 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.  Broadhead, P., Howard, J. and Wood, E. (eds) Play and Learning in the Early Years: From research to practice. London: Sage 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 childrens 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. Lester, S, Russell, W, & Bernard Van Leer Foundation, ( 2010, Childrens Right to Play: An Examination of the Importance of Play in the Lives of Children Worldwide. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development, No. 57, Bernard Van Leer Foundation, ERIC, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 February 2014. 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. Rogers, S. and Evans, J. 2008. Inside role-play in early childhood education. London: Routledge. 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. Read More