The Fact that Play Pedagogy - Case Study Example

IMPACT OF PRACTITIONERS ON PLAY PEDAGOGY AND THE TENSION AND CHALLENGES OF PLAY PEDAGOGY College: Impact of Practitioners on Play Pedagogy and the Tension and Challenges of Play Pedagogy In early childhood learning, play pedagogy has become a controversial topic surrounded by the complexities of child education enhancement. Play pedagogy is the integration of games in the learning environment to help the learners acquire knowledge through their process of playing. Many theorists have expressed the idea that play pedagogy is the best way to help student in developing their creativity and discovery in the learning process. However, there has been a controversy as to whether these methods have negative psychological impacts on the children. As such as many academic program developers seek to include more play in the learning environment, there is a group that is warning that these methods could have more negative impacts on the children than positive ones. From a critical point of view, play can be effective in the childhood learning as long as the practitioners in this field impact modest play pedagogy. If well handled, play pedagogy can enhance learning in the academic field as long as the practitioner take control of the nature of plays introduced in their institutions. A wide range of theory has supported the fact that play pedagogy is a useful element of learning in the contemporary learning environment. Anning, Cullen and Fleer (2009) stated that play support the free learning of children and helps learners to come across useful knowledge that cannot be acquired in class. On this ground, it is significant for instructors to include enough constructive play within their curriculum to help learners be creators of their won knowledge and motivate them to be discoverer. In play-based learning, the instructors allow learners to interact with education based games such that they discover new educational features through the learning process. Psychologist argue that in play, children are open minded and happy, which is the best time to impact education. At this time they are more receptive and can absorb and retain much more rather than when instructional-based learning is implemented. For instance, a child who learns the features of a cow while moulding is likely to retain more than one who acquires the same knowledge in class. In this respect, it is clear that play-based learning is superior in young learners than any other method of learning. In essence, play-based learning is one form of inquiry-based learning strategies that have become popular in the contemporary learning environment. The question that arises is whether play pedagogy can substitute instructional-based learning methods in the learning environment. As most researchers have advanced, both strategies are equally important and are supplementary in nature. Instructional methods focus on the curriculum content that instructors need to impact on the learning environment. Ideally, the curriculum is constrained on particular content that the instructors cannot fully integrate in the learning environment. As the children are not in a position to digest the content as required, the instructors must play use instruction based learning to ensure the programs are well covered (Smith, 2005). On the other hand, instructional methods inhibit the creativity of the learners and constrain them to the designed curriculums. In this light, there is need to harmonize the two methods to ensure that the learning process is complete and objective. The role of the practitioners is to deliver the curriculum content and boost creativity within the learning environment. However, research has proved that most countries in the world have designed education systems that inhibit creativity and concentrate on curriculum delivery in early childhood learning. As such, there is need for practitioners in the education sector to assimilate more play in the learning environment to inject creativity among young learners. Today, a heated debate exists about the exact role of educational practitioners in integrating play in the learning environment. Jenkin (2013) has supported that play-based learning not only supports the health and psychological wellbeing of a child but also facilitates problem solving skills, enhance the imagination power of child and develops creativity. However, he points out that the practitioners have failed in their role of integrating play pedagogy in the learning environment. One suggestion that he provides is that curriculum designers must give enough opportunities for the implementation of play-based learning. Often, play pedagogy is ignored in the curriculum design strategy and this makes it a challenge for instructors to implement it in the learning environment. The curriculums are very extensive and leave very little time for play, hence teacher have no chance to implement play. In this light, there is need to design academic programs that have a place for play-based learning to help teachers in implementing these methods in the learning environment. The quest for a balance in teaching methods is on step towards the path to complete learning in early childhood education. Another role of practitioners is to direct the learners towards the direction that they need to follow while playing. It is not about allowing children to play alone but also to help them acquire the right knowledge while playing. Some games may not have the right academic content that the learners require at this stage of education. There is need to align the play-based learning with curriculum demands to support the knowledge development process. The play pedagogy provides the learner with the freedom on what to learn and the free will to absorb the content that entices them (Smith, 2005: Blaise, 2005). It gives them the opportunity to discover the elements of education that surround their environment. In this light, the instructors have the role to ensure that in the course of play, the young students acquire and discover the right learning. For instance, students will discover different aspects when they play with alphabets as compared to when they play with numbers. This aspect of learning can only be achieved if the games are optimally integrated with the academic materials and the play methods provide opportunities for the learners to discover (Cochran and Staples, 2006). In this light, the teachers have the role to design the games and in directing the learners towards the right paths in the process of discovery. However, new challenges have emerged in the play pedagogies in the contemporary educational environment. In the era of modern technology, many play-based learning methods have evolved posing new challenges in this instruction approach. The proliferation of the internet technology has allowed developers to come up with online computer games that have triggered vast debate in the education sector (Youell, 2008). While these gadgets provide learners with chance to acquire high level of creativity, they are potential inhibitors of creativity. Computer games have become an addictive source of luxury that has reduced the efficiency of play pedagogy (Wood, 2008). While learners have the opportunity to interact with academic-based games, these games not customized to the child’s educational needs. These games are not optimized and this makes it impossible for learners to acquire the right form of education. Hence, these new learning methods have added inefficiency in the development of play-based learning pedagogies. Notably, the agenda on play based learning methods is a complex and highly dependent on the practitioner’s strategies. As the play methods continue to evolve, more teachers feel that there is no room for play in learning environment. Some believe that technological changes have brought games that create fun and ignore the need for education. This has led to the wide adoption of exam-focused teaching methods that aim at delivering the curriculum and preparing learners for better grades in their education. However, there is still hope that play can have positive impact on the learning environment (Sluss and Jarrett, 2007). To achieve effectiveness, there is need for the practitioners to control this method of instruction to achieve optimum results. For instance, the teachers should design and restrict the learners on the best games that achieve optimum learning needs. While learners should be given the freedom to learn to boost their imagination and creativity, the teachers must guide the learners in this process to ensure they acquire the right knowledge (Edwards, 2003). The games should be customized to the specific learning demands of the students by integrating curriculum content within the play sessions. In essence, the superiority of the play pedagogies lies in the shoulders of the practitioners. In conclusion, the efficiency of the play pedagogies in early childhood education depends on the ability of the instructors to successfully integrate play within the curriculum. While there has been tension between the proponents of play pedagogies and those who oppose these methods, it has been proven that it is the only methods to boost creativity and the power of imagination in young learners. However, the practitioners have failed to provide adequate time for instructors to use both instructional and play based learning methods. Another challenge with this method is that the instructors have little influence on what knowledge the learners acquire, especially in the presence of computer driven games. The only way to overcome these challenges and to reduce the heightened tension is to increase instructors control over these pedagogies to ensure that the learners get the right knowledge from these instruction methods. Bibliography Anning, A., Cullen, J., and Fleer, M., 2009, Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture. Los Angeles: Sage. Blaise, M. (2005) Playing It Straight: Uncovering Gender Discourses in the Early Childhood Classroom. London: Routledge. Cochran, M. and Staples, R., 2006. Early Childhood Education. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Edwards, S. (2003) New directions: charting the path for the role of socio–cultural theory in early childhood education and curriculum, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(3): 251–66. Jenkin, M., 2013, Learning Through Play: Pedagogy, Challenges and Ideas. The Teachers Network, 2(1). Sluss, D.J. and Jarrett, O.S. (2007) Investigating Play in the 21st Century. Play and Culture Studies, vol. 7. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Smith, P.K. (2005) Play: types and functions in human development. Origins of the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Child Development. New York: Guilford Press. Wood, E. (2008) Everyday play activities as therapeutic and pedagogical encounters, European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 10(2): 111–20. Wood, E., 2012. Reconceptualising the Play Pedagogy Relationship. Available through: < https://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335235865.pdf> Youell, B. (2008) The importance of play and playfulness, European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 10(2): 121–9. Read More