Images and Play

Play in the kindergarten: the case of Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Japan

Evanthia Synodi*

Department of Preschool Education, Faculty of Education, University of Crete, Crete, Greece

(Received 26 October 2009; final version received 6 August 2010)

This paper discusses the kindergarten curricula of Norway, Sweden, Japan and New Zealand in terms of whether they recommend or suggest teachers unify play and pedagogy by employing a pedagogy of play. These countries were selected because, while they have to provide for children’s right to play, they cover different geographical and cultural parts of the world � Europe, Asia and Oceania. Their curricula were examined because they can influence teachers in favour or against employing a pedagogy of play, since they express the official- state expectations regarding young children’s play and learning. The documen- tary analysis indicates that Japan focuses on child-initiated and teacher-directed play only, which does not imply a pedagogy of play. In Norway and New Zealand, there is evidence of almost all aspects of a pedagogy of play, which is not recommended for all learning, while the Swedish curriculum recommends a pedagogy of play.

Keywords: play; kindergarten; pedagogy

Introduction

In the West, there is a tradition of play being part of kindergarten life. Play and learning are considered complementary dimensions of young children’s lives, integrated into their worlds (Bae 2009; Pramling Samuelsson and Asplund Carlsson 2008). There is also a body of literature, both theoretical and empirical, which emphasises that play can contribute to every aspect of the young child’s development; social, personal, linguistic, physical, cognitive, moral, creative and artistic (e.g. Bergen 2002; Elias and Berg 2002; Gmitrova and Gmitrov 2003; Macintyre 2001; Robson 2006; Wood and Attfield 2005) as well as being a context where children exercise their rights (e.g. Canning 2007; Hakkarainen 2009; Jans 2004; Löfdahl and Hägglund 2006; Morgan 2010; Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2006). Nevertheless, relating play and pedagogy in the kindergarten has been problematic, not only because of the difficulties of putting theory into practice (Jones and Reynolds 1992; Rogers and Evans 2008), but also because of policy constraints (Wood 2010).

The pedagogy of play is an attempt to link play and pedagogy in kindergarten. It refers to: (a) the resources of a kindergarten and the organisation of its learning environment; (b) the structure of its daily routine; and (c) the strategies teachers use so that children learn through play and playful activities (Wood 2009, 27; see also

*Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Early Years Education

Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2010, 185�200

ISSN 0966-9760 print/ISSN 1469-8463 online

– 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2010.521299

http://www.informaworld.com

Lindqvist 2003). However, before discussing its importance and the specifics of this study, it needs to be further analysed.

A pedagogy of play

Play in the kindergarten 1

can develop in different ways, each of which has something different to offer to children’s learning and development. Play can be child-directed or teacher-directed or mutually directed by both teachers and children depending on who has control over it. Teachers should provide and allow opportunities for all three approaches to play to develop and for children to actually perceive all of them as play, before claiming that they employ a pedagogy of play.

The most well-known approach to play is the free or child-initiated or child- directed play (Gmitrova, Podhajecka, and Gmitrov 2007, 1), which means that children in kindergarten are allowed to play and teachers do not directly interfere (Einarsdottir 1998; Swiecicka and Russell 1991). Such play occurs during the free activity time or during breaks in kindergarten and can take place both indoors and outdoors.

At free play, children have power over their play and control it (Wood and Attfield 2005) and their teacher acts as an organiser (Wood and Attfield 2005; see also Swiecicka and Russell 1991) or a stage manager (Jones and Reynolds 1992), as an observer, a listener, an assessor and a planner (Jones and Reynolds 1992; Wood and Attfield 2005). As a stage manager/organiser, a teacher sets the scene, organises the kindergarten environment and equips it with materials for children to play. Then, when free play takes place, she acts first as an observer and a listener, then as an assessor of children’s development and later as a planner of activities. Teachers observe and listen to children playing and then make professional judgements about their progress and interests or their misunderstandings. This way they can inform parents about their children’s progress as well as plan activities and organise the environment based on where children are and what their interests are (Bruce 1997b; Curtis 1998; Hurst 1991).

The assessment of children’s progress may lead to teachers resorting to, among other strategies and techniques, the second approach to play in kindergarten, i.e. the teacher-organised or teacher-directed (Gmitrova, Podhajecka, and Gmitrov 2007, 4; Wood and Attfield 2005) or adult-guided or structured play (Bruce 1997a, 93) or tutored play (Mellou 1994, 119). In this case, the teacher prepares games or playful activities to use them as teaching opportunities. Teacher-directed play is employed, because it helps children consolidate and practice what they have been taught (Smaragda-Tsiantzi 1995). In teacher-organised play, the rules of play are set and given by the teacher (e.g. riddles and puzzles) or are included in the play object/toy itself (e.g. assembling an airplane) or in the problem usually expressed in the name of the play e.g. ‘find two same things’ (Smaragda-Tsiantzi 1995, 188; see also Gmitrova, Podhajecka, and Gmitrov 2007, 4). These rules of play or the solution to the play problem dictate a specific way that needs to be followed in order for one to play successfully (Gmitrova, Podhajecka, and Gmitrov 2007, 4; Smaragda- Tsiantzi 1995) and bring to the adult, who sets the rules, the power to be in control of the play (Tullgren 2004, cited in Bae 2009, 401; Wood and Attfield, 2005). Teachers may use toys and/or other objects found in the market or create them themselves (Gmitrova, Podhajecka, and Gmitrov 2007; Smaragda-Tsiantzi 1996). Drama, music

186 E. Synodi

games, physical education games, computer games, puzzles and dominoes belong to this approach to play (Mellou 1994; Smaragda-Tsiantzi 1995).

When employing teacher-directed play, a teacher acts as a tutor towards children. Based on the children’s interests, their level of development and the curricular objectives, their teacher plans to teach with the help of playful activities and games. Since the rules of a teacher-directed play are preset for children, teachers explain the rules to them and demonstrate how a game is played, so that children understand how to be successful in it (Gmitrova, Podhajecka, and Gmitrov 2007, 5; Smaragda- Tsiantzi 1996).

The last approach to play is mutually directed play (Henry 1990, 45), where both adults and children share power over play (Bruce 1997a; David and Goouch 2001; Henry 1990, 45; Wood and Attfield 2005). It takes place when teachers become involved in children’s free play in a non-disruptive way. Non-disruptive ways of adult involvement in children’s play are the opposite of teachers interrupting children’s play to teach them rules or concepts included in the curriculum or teachers taking over children’s play (Henry 1990; Jones and Reynolds 1992; Macintyre 2001; Wood and Attfield 2005). Another condition for the development of mutually directed play is for teachers to respect children and become involved in their play ‘on children’s terms’ (Wood and Attfield 2005, 172; see also Canning 2007; Goouch 2008), that is having their meanings and intentions in mind (Gmitrova and Gmitrov 2003; Jones and Reynolds 1992; Kitson 1997; Wood and Attfield 2005). This means that, in a way that does not disrupt children’s play and is respectful of their intentions, teachers (a) help children find ways to use materials creatively, negotiate with other children, solve problems that may arise, while playing, so that their play becomes more complicated and (b) impart enthusiasm, so that children’s play continues.

When becoming involved in play that is mutually directed, a kindergarten teacher also acts as a mediator, a co-player and a scribe (Jones and Reynolds 1992; Kitson 1997; Wood and Attfield 2005). Acting as a scribe for the children is particularly significant both for the development of their logical thinking through representations and for literacy development. Symbolic representations, conventional or not, contribute to children making their play more sophisticated (Roskos and Neuman 1993; Rowe 1998) and to them acquiring more control over it, which indicates that they are becoming master players (David and Goouch 2001; Jones and Reynolds 1992; Wood and Attfield 2005).

As a co-player, a teacher assumes a role in children’s play and, when children get in a rut, may make suggestions or ask questions that cause children to think of new ideas, which help them continue their play or enrich it. As a mediator, the teacher may help children resolve differences or solve problems, so that their play is not disrupted. This is achieved by the adult modelling appropriate behaviours without taking over the children’s play and without directly teaching or reminding children of their classroom rules (Gmitrova and Gmitrov 2003; Jones and Reynolds 1992; Kitson 1997; Wood and Attfield 2005).

The children’s and the teachers’ perceptions of the above approaches to play, however, determine whether these approaches become part of a pedagogy of play, because the latter is based on the responsive approach to education and on the integrated approach to pedagogy.

The responsive approach to education derives from the perception that children’s learning depends on their participation in kindergarten life, which includes play and

International Journal of Early Years Education 187

learning. It is different from the directive approach to education, which aims at children acquiring the accumulated knowledge and the values and beliefs of society (Wood 2010).

The directive approach to education promotes the work�play dichotomy (Wood 2010), which does not cater for the ‘children’s right to engage in playful ways with a given curriculum’ (Broadhead 2010, 55). Within a framework of such a dichotomy, children learn to distinguish between learning and play (Keating et al. 2010) and to link learning with teachers and play with their self-initiated activities (Howard 2010; Robson 1993; Wing 1995). This is not beneficial for children, because research has shown that, if children view activities as play, their learning is facilitated and their perseverance on the task and their problem-solving skills are cultivated (Howard 2010; Whitebread 2010). This is why it is important for play and playfulness to be found in every activity in the kindergarten.

To provide such a playful mode in kindergarten, teachers (a) must allow children control over all activities and not constrain them in terms of where and how long they play for (Howard 2010) and (b) they themselves must participate in all types of activities (Howard 2010; Wood 2010). Based on this, it can be argued that (a) teacher-directed play, when children are not used to teachers playing with them and (b) teachers’ disruptive actions, when trying to become involved in children’s free play, are based on a directive rationale. Teachers in this case use play to teach, because their aim is for children to learn the curriculum (Smaragda-Tsiantzi 1995). The same goes for free play. If play and work are distinguished (work�play dichotomy) or if not all types of free play are allowed or valued in the kindergarten (mixed approach, neither directive nor responsive), then free play is not part of a pedagogy of play (Wood 2010).

Because a pedagogy of play is an integrated approach to pedagogy, it ‘combines the benefits of teacher-directed and child-directed activities’ (Wood 2010, 20). To implement an integrated approach to pedagogy means that planning, assessment and feedback are shared and co-constructed between the teacher and the children in kindergarten (Wood 2010). Since the pedagogy of play is integrated, it does not deny children the opportunity to benefit from teacher-directed play or activities, provided, however, that they are perceived as play and they are based on their interests rather than only on delivering the curriculum.

For teachers, therefore, to employ all three approaches to play according to the rationale of a pedagogy of play, it is important that they first ensure that children understand that teachers are play partners among other things (Howard 2002, Howard 2010; Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2009). It is also vitally important for teachers to show how much they value play not only by participating in all of it, but also by showing that they value it as much as learning and their own, teacher- organised play or activities (Howard 2010; Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2009). Third, all activities in kindergarten, including the teacher-initiated ones, must have elements of playfulness (Howard 2010; Whitebread 2010). In such a case, learning is not limited to the content and standards of any official curriculum, but is holistic and not passive and refers to all aspects of children’s development.

The above make the pedagogy of play important to investigate. Another reason this is so is that a pedagogy of play can be one more powerful ‘tool’ in the hands of kindergarten teachers to act professionally, because it represents an attempt to link play and teaching, both of which children are entitled (United Nations 1989). Even though a pedagogy of play has not been put to the test to an adequate degree in

188 E. Synodi

kindergartens yet, the more teaching strategies that teachers own, the more likely it is for them to contribute to their pupils’ learning and the more autonomy they gain to translate central government documents on curriculum to professional practice (Leat and Higgins 2002; Siraj-Blatchford 2009).

The background of the study

Despite the importance of play and of linking it to teaching young children, in my country, Greece, curriculum policy does not seem to have paid adequate or appropriate attention to play. There was no official provision for time for free play and free activities in the daily routine of state-run kindergartens, except for the breaks, until the implementation of the 1980 curriculum. The latter was replaced by another in 1989, which kept the free activities time in the routine, but was devoted to teacher-planned activities and that is why play in the respective document meant teacher-organised play. Later, in 2003, a new curriculum document was issued, which had a section on free play only, but continued to make references to teacher- organised games in its learning areas. However, in the Free Play section of the curriculum (Ministerial Decision �2/2107 2b 2003, 8), it is not suggested or recommended that children’s initiatives and interests, as expressed in free play, are to be related to the goals of each curricular area. So, some distinction between play and teaching in kindergarten continues to be officially transmitted through the last national curriculum. The latter also recommends projects and themes as the pedagogies to be used in kindergarten and emphasises them over others by not mentioning them at all.

Teachers have been trying to understand what these pedagogies mean for their practice and trying to link them to their practice that was based on the previous two curricula, which also minimally linked play, teaching and pedagogy. The vagueness about what teachers are required to do with each curricular reform is further exacerbated by the lack of Green and White Papers or of processes of revision before legislation.

The above show that curriculum documents have an effect on teachers’ perception of what practice might be professional. Therefore, teachers in other countries may also be too anxious to implement their national curriculum and not critically reflect on how and what a pedagogy of play can contribute to its implementation.

Furthermore, other authors have also captured the impact of policy reforms on teachers’ practice and ideologies, which can be either de-professionalising or professionalising. For example, in England with the implementation of the National Curriculum, teachers’ adaptation to the reforms ranged from compliance, to accommodation, to resistance or rejection (Troman 1996). Boyle also wrote about the composite professional teacher, who complies with some reforms and resists others (Boyle 1995, cited in Troman 1996, 485). Fennimore (1989) links the issue of teachers being hindered from implementing a developmentally appropriate curricu- lum, because it may not be part of a job offer, with teachers’ professionalism in the USA. More recently, Morgan commented on the de-professionalising effect of the curricular requirement to teach young children about Information and Communica- tions Technology (ICT). He argued that the difficulty of combining the implementa- tion of a pedagogy of play with the ICT requirements has pressured some teachers in Wales to develop a ‘more formal pedagogy’ (Morgan 2010, 95; see also Goouch 2008; Stephen 2010).

International Journal of Early Years Education 189

On the other hand, other authors have captured the professionalising effect of policy reforms on teaching, such as the inclusion of play in the curriculum documents for young children in England since 2000 (McGillivray 2007; Wood 2009) and the implementation of Te Whāriki in New Zealand because of its bicultural character (Soler and Miller 2003).

All the above show that policy reforms influence teachers’ practice, especially if they are mandatory. However, despite the significance of play in young children’s life and of the contribution of a pedagogy of play to children’s learning and development, few studies have shown what relationship between play and pedagogy in different countries promote through their national curriculum policy (Izumi-Taylor, Pramling Samuelsson, and Rogers 2010). This is an important issue to study, because teaching and playing take place in a historical context. They are social activities influenced by cultural values and beliefs, which change with time. The context in which teaching and play take place may constrain or support individuals’ actions, such as teachers’ actions, and teachers’ actions, attitudes and understandings may transform the context. Examining the curriculum policy is part of examining the institutional context in which play and teaching take place, which is a context that can influence teachers’ practice and the extent to which they might resort to a pedagogy of play (see also Wood 2010).

Method of study

Documentary-based research

This study is dedicated to exploring how certain countries deal with the pedagogy of play through documentary-based research. Documentary research uses finished, written material that was not produced for the research (Lankshear and Knobel 2004, 55). Primary documents (Lankshear and Knobel 2004; McCulloch 2004) such as national kindergarten curricula were selected to be studied, because they apply to all kindergarten teachers in each country and because, as already explained, they have an impact on practice.

This study is not interested in messages that texts may imply with their language and form or in power relations in education they may be reinforcing. It is interested in determining whether play and pedagogy are linked in the documents and to what extent. Do the documents separate play from pedagogy, relate the two or unify them? This required an analysis of the documents to see if they recommend only free play or only teacher-directed play or only mutually directed play. If all three approaches are mentioned, then a pedagogy of play might seem to be being recommended. If not, then play and pedagogy are not unified. If only free play is mentioned, then play and pedagogy are separated (work�play dichotomy, directive approach), whereas if free play and teacher-directed play are mentioned, then play and pedagogy are related (mixed approach) but not unified.

In order to find if play and pedagogy are linked together in the curricula, the first phase of the analysis identified all the excerpts where ‘play’ or ‘games’ were mentioned. Then, each except was analysed in order to determine if it referred to:

� Free or child-initiated or child-directed play. � Teacher-directed or teacher-organised or adult-guided or structured or tutored

play or playful activities. � Mutually directed play.

190 E. Synodi

To do that, written evidence, which shows the difference between children’s free and mutually directed play was sought, based on the literature on a teacher’s disruptive actions (Henry 1990; Jones and Reynolds 1992; Macintyre 2001; Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2006; Wood and Attfield 2005). This means that terms or sentences recommending that teachers become involved in children’s play on the children’s terms and interests or not were sought for.

In the second phase, all the excerpts in the documents regarding the teachers’ roles and tasks in relation both to teaching and to play were selected and analysed, so as to determine if and how the two (teaching and play) were related. This was considered necessary, because teachers’ roles in relation to play and teaching determine whether the documents refer to free, teacher-directed or mutually directed play. A pedagogy of play means that teachers act as scribes, co-players, mediators, tutors, observers, assessors, planners and organisers (Jones and Reynolds 1992; Wood and Attfield 2005). The existence of references to any of these roles was used to support claims of the recommendation of each of the three approaches to play. If all the above roles teachers assume, when implementing a pedagogy of play or a combination of approaches to play and roles that covers the width of a pedagogy of play are not mentioned, then a pedagogy of play is not recommended or implied.

Comments and suggestions in the documents regarding teachers’ responsibility towards the learning environment in relation to play are considered part of the teachers’ role as organisers.

Time and space to be allocated among play, learning and other personal and social activities (e.g. socialising, dinner, rest) are another aspects of a pedagogy of play, but none of the documents was so detailed as to cover them, so they could not be addressed by the study of these selected documents.

As already explained, a pedagogy of play requires children’s participation in and control over the kindergarten activities as well as their viewing these activities as play. This was examined only in terms of the existence of mutually directed play, rather than any other activity, because all the above elements are found in it (i.e. children’s control over their play and teachers’ participation in and appreciation of children’s play). Therefore, this study does not cover the examination of the exact position of children in kindergarten life in terms of their control, participation, agency over play and the rest of the activities, which would have given us a clearer picture of the link of play and pedagogy that the documents promote. Other factors, too, which this study does not cover, influence teachers’ resorting to a pedagogy of play, such as school inspections, teachers’ appraisals, in- service training, policy development procedures, initial teacher education and training, teachers’ own perceptions of the importance of relating play to pedagogy and teachers’ practice. They also need to be examined for a clearer picture on how different cultures and countries treat young children’s education by relating play and pedagogy or not.

As far as the methodology of this study is concerned, to ensure the trustworthiness of the study, manageable research questions were formed (Lankshear and Knobel 2004, 366), which have already been discussed. The communicative validity (Lankshear and Knobel 2004, 363) of this study is ensured by explaining in detail and substantiating research decisions regarding the methodology and analysis of the data.

International Journal of Early Years Education 191

The sample

Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Japan were selected to be studied, because they have all signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989), one of which is play. This means that they all have to amend their policies in order to cater for the children’s right to play. Another reason these countries were selected is because they cover three different geographical areas, European, Asian and Oceanic countries, with different cultures, yet with a tradition of play in kindergarten.

Both Scandinavian countries have a social democratic history, which has given priority to the education and care of young children (Wagner 2006, cited in Moss 2007, 10), the tradition of a good childhood inclusive of play (Bae 2009; Hakkarainen 2009; Jensen 2009) and a kindergarten tradition based on the Froebelian philosophy, which also emphasises children’s play (Einarsdottir 1998; Strand 2009).

The Japanese kindergarten has also been affected by Froebel and the importance he paid to play, and play became part of the state-run kindergarten life just over a century ago (Ishigaki 1991, 1992; Shirakawa and Kitano 2005; Whitburn 2003). However, the idea of a good childhood does not exist and the Japanese state has paid attention to kindergarten education and to young children only since 1947 (Shirakawa and Kitano 2005).

Norway and Sweden together with Japan are considered to be more homogeneous culturally (Green, Preston, and Janmaat 2006) compared to New Zealand, which has a history of the European, Anglo-Saxon culture suppressing the native East Asian, Polynesean one.

Kindergarten education in New Zealand has been characterised as a neoliberal experiment (Duhn 2006), yet at the same time Te Whāriki, its national curriculum, is considered to be an exemplary curriculum guide for teachers of young children because of its social-constructivist direction (Soler and Miller 2003; Wood and Attfield 2005). Kindergarten in New Zealand has also been influenced by Froebel and his ideas about play (Bethell 2006).

These differences and similarities among the countries make the comparison more interesting and valuable (Lubeck 1985, cited in Hatch 1995, 101; Teune 1990, cited in Øyen 1990, 48�50), when they are related to their curriculum policy on play and pedagogy to determine whether they influence it or not.

There is equivalence in terms of the age range the curriculum documents of the above countries cover, as they all refer to the same age range this study covers, that is children aged 3½�6 years. The curricula reveal the state perspective on play for children from birth to six in Norway, birth to five in Sweden

2 and in New

Zealand and from three to five in Japan. Children in Norway and Sweden start primary school at the age of seven, whereas in New Zealand and Japan at the age of six. Te Whāriki has a common text for all preschool age ranges as well as sections on infants (birth to 18 months), toddlers (one year to three-year-olds) and young children (aged 2½�5½/6). For the equivalence among the curricula not to be disturbed, the part of Te Whāriki common for all ages and the part that refers to young children were examined.

192 E. Synodi

Data analysis

Norway

The importance given to play is evident in the Norwegian document, because there is a section devoted to play (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 15�6) and because play is mentioned in other parts of it, too.

The document requests teachers to ensure playfulness in everything in kindergarten, because it declares that play, together with care and learning, is an aspect of all activities in kindergarten (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 3, 11), which is one important requirement for the implementation of a pedagogy of play.

Evidence of mutually directed, free and teacher-directed play can be found in the document, which indicates a pedagogy of play. The framework suggests mutually directed play, because it is stated that staff should be available to help, ‘encourage’ and ‘inspire’ children in their play (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 16) rather than to seize the opportunity to teach them, which would imply disruptive actions.

In relation to free play, it is mentioned that play is to be provoked by the physical environment indoors and outdoors (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 11). Also, according to the section on planning and assessment of the document, play is one of the areas to be planned by teachers (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 29�30). These excerpts suggest that teachers should act as organisers, which is one of the roles teachers assume, when offering children opportunities for free play.

The number, spaces and shapes area is the only learning area, where teacher- directed play is recommended (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 27).

This above evidence of a pedagogy of play, however, is compromised, when examining the content of each curricular area. Play is not mentioned in the area of ethics, religion and philosophy, whereas mutually directed play is mentioned only in the body movement and health area, which asks teachers to support ‘children’s ideas for games’ (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 23). As already mentioned, teacher-directed play is found only in the number, spaces and shapes area. Free play and the teachers’ respective roles are mentioned only in some learning areas. The teacher’s role as organiser is found in communication, language and text (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 22) and in nature, environment and technology (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 25) only. There is also reference to teachers acting as assessors. The assessment of children’s free play is linked to planning only in the number, spaces and shapes area (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 27).

Therefore, the document relates play to pedagogy only for certain areas of learning. It communicates ambiguous messages, because it either overemphasises certain approaches to play for some learning (mixed approach) or separates play from pedagogy for other learning (directive approach).

This ambiguity, however, can be minimised or generalised by each municipal authority that has to monitor the implementation of this national curriculum and by the personnel in kindergarten, who have to use the document as a ‘planning, documentation and assessment tool’ (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 3).

International Journal of Early Years Education 193

Sweden

The Swedish document does not give the same significance to play as Norway by having a section dedicated to play, but there are references to play in various parts of it. According to the section ‘Development and learning’, all activities should promote play, which is one of the prerequisites for the implementation of a pedagogy of play (Howard 2010).

There is evidence of the document recommending the provision of free play. According to it, the preschool environment should be secure and challenging and ‘encourage play’ (Department of Education 1998, 5). The daily routines should provide time and space for free play indoors and outdoors (Department of Education 1998, 7). This is also mentioned again in its guidelines, according to which the preschool personnel should provide an environment for play (Department of Education 1998, 10). The above show that free play is appreciated and that teachers are encouraged to act as organisers. There is no clear mention of teachers acting as observers and listeners of children’s play, which are prerequisites for its assessment, but there is to their acting as assessors and planners. Teachers are expected to plan according to children’s interests and needs, which are expressed in different ways (Department of Education 1998, 11).

Teacher-directed play is recommended for all learning (Department of Education 1998, 6, 9), while there is no direct evidence or reference to mutually directed play. However, in the section ‘Development and learning’, it is clearly stated that one of the preschool curriculum goals is to develop the children’s ‘ability to play’ (Department of Education 1998, 9). According to the literature, it is mutually directed play that contributes to children becoming ‘master players’ (Jones and Reynolds 1992, 4�5), although that does not exclude free play either.

Based on the above and having in mind that the curriculum does not specify learning areas, one can claim that there is evidence of a pedagogy of play being recommended by the document.

New Zealand

There is no section on play in Te Whāriki, even though it is all about the framework of the early years provision (Soler and Miller 2003), which would be expected to include more on young children’s leading activity, play.

In the document, there is evidence of all three approaches to play. The importance of teacher-directed play is found in contribution

3 and in communication,

in the examples of teacher-organised experiences that help children achieve the goals of these strands (Ministry of Education 1996, 71, 75).

Evidence of mutually directed play is found only in exploration, where it is explained that, because children learn through play, it is the teachers’ responsibility to ‘support and extend children’s play without interrupting or dominating’ it (Ministry of Education 1996, 83).

The appreciation of child-initiated play and the responsibility teachers have to provide for it as well as for opportunities for children to talk about it (Ministry of Education 1996, 83, 85) are also found in the document. Free play is mentioned in all the goals of the communication

4 strand as an experience, through which children

learn more about language and mathematics and express themselves and become creative (Ministry of Education 1996, 75�80). The same applies to the exploration5

194 E. Synodi

strand. One of its goals is for children to experience an environment where ‘play is valued as meaningful learning and the importance of spontaneous play is recognised’ (Ministry of Education 1996, 82), which is achieved when children have become confident to ‘play near and with others’ (Ministry of Education 1996, 84, 86).

In the document, there is evidence of a pedagogy of play, because all three approaches to play are mentioned, but it does not apply equally to all the areas of learning. The approach taken towards young children’s education in relation to play seems to be mixed, because play is related to certain learning only. It is also directive, because play is not related at all to the contents of the learning areas of well-being and belonging. Both of these approaches to education do not agree with teachers’ employing a pedagogy of play throughout their work.

Japan

Even though there is no section on play in the Japanese curriculum document, there are many references to it throughout, but not to a pedagogy of play. The data do not imply a pedagogy of play, because there is nothing in the document to indicate mutually directed play or that teachers are requested to ensure that there are elements of play in every kindergarten activity or to participate in all play activities (Howard 2010; Wood 2010).

In its section entitled ‘Basic Ideal of Kindergarten Education’, both teacher- directed play and child-initiated play are acknowledged (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture 2000, 2).

Free play is also evident in the methodological advice of the environment area. It is mentioned that, in order for children to learn to think on their own, they must include their surrounding environment in their play (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture 2000, 7). Free play appears again in the content of the expression area, which includes children using a variety of materials creatively and a variety of ways of expressing themselves in their play (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture 2000, 9). The teacher’s roles of assessor and organiser, too are clearly acknowledged in this area, because teachers are requested to provide for play based on their knowledge of each child and their development (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture 2000, 10). Furthermore, part of the content of the health area is children’s free play in the school yard and emphasis is given to play in the natural environment and to teachers’ organising the outdoors play areas (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture 2000, 4).

Teacher-directed play is mentioned only in the health area, because teachers are advised to use different games so that children can achieve their aims (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture 2000, 4).

Play is included in the document, because it can contribute to children learning certain aspects of the national curriculum, since it is not mentioned in the learning areas ‘Language and human relationships’. The position of play in the document appears to be based both on a directive approach to education, because play is distinguished from certain content of the curriculum to be taught as well as on a mixed approach because certain types of play are allowed. Both perceptions, however, do not agree with the rationale of a pedagogy of play.

International Journal of Early Years Education 195

Conclusions

This paper has been concerned with the position of the pedagogy of play in the official kindergarten curricula of Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Japan. The implementation of a pedagogy of play means that in a kindergarten opportunities for free, child-initiated and mutually directed play exist, children view them as play and teachers ensure that elements of play and playfulness are evident in every activity (Howard 2010; Jones and Reynolds 1992; Wood 2010).

It becomes apparent that the Froebelian tradition of play of the selected countries and their ratifying of the Convention on the rights of the child (1989) have had an effect on their policy, since all of their curricula refer to free and teacher-directed play. Mutually directed play is mentioned in the curriculum documents of Norway and New Zealand, and is implied in the Swedish one.

The existence of all three approaches to play indicates the adoption of a big part of a pedagogy of play. However, in the curricula of Norway and New Zealand, the three approaches to play are not recommended for all learning areas. The Swedish curriculum, on the other hand, is brief and comprehensive without any learning areas, which means that whatever it foresees applies to all learning, to learning in all areas. Its difference from the Norwegian curriculum and Te Whāriki is that its pedagogy of play refers to all learning areas and not to some of them. This means that the Swedish curriculum takes a more holistic, integrated and responsive perspective on play, learning and teaching than the other two curricula.

Furthermore, it became evident that only the Scandinavian countries of the sample were concerned with play being part of every activity in kindergarten, which is another significant aspect of a pedagogy of play (Howard 2010).

The Nordic tradition of play during a happy childhood is perhaps one reason there is some evidence of a pedagogy of play in the Norwegian curriculum as well as in the Swedish one. As in these countries the curriculum documents are to be further developed into general objectives for schools by local authorities, so as to cater for the specific circumstances of each municipality where a kindergarten is located (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 4, 30; Sweden 2009/2010), these further regulations may reinforce the pedagogy of play in Sweden and Norway. These regulations, however, are not examined in this study, so as to have a clearer perception of the pedagogy of play in kindergartens.

In New Zealand, the curriculum is made into a programme by each kindergarten, which should request the contribution of the local community to this enterprise (Ministry of Education 1996, 11, 27, 44). Consultation with the local community may reinforce the position of the pedagogy of play in kindergarten depending on the perceptions of play each community in New Zealand holds and fights for. Again, this is not examined in this study, but it is a topic worth investigating, so as to know more on the position of play in kindergarten life and the degree to which it is related to teaching.

In Japan, free play has been considered a way of helping children with their social and emotional development (Whitburn 2003), that is with learning to resolve difficulties in relationships and handling antisocial behaviour and not for ‘academic purposes’ (Izumi-Taylor, Pramling Samuelsson, and Rogers 2010, 4). That is why teachers tend to withdraw their control from free play and delegate it to children (Whitburn 2003) rather than mutually control play with children or resort to disruptive actions. This means that the perception of how children can be socialised,

196 E. Synodi

become independent and learn causes the relationship between play and pedagogy to be different in Japan.

From the analysis, it became evident that the different histories and cultures these countries have in relation to childhood and education have affected the content of their kindergarten curricula in terms of pedagogy. The administration of their education system has also the potential to encourage or deter teachers from employing a pedagogy of play and needs to be further studied.

Before further steps are taken in relation to policy for young children, it is necessary to investigate their perceptions of play and learning alone, with peers or adults and consider them equally to those of society, so as not to hear children ask ‘Is she allowed to?’ to the question ‘Does your teacher play with you sometimes?’ (Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson 2009, 89).

Notes

1. An education institution for children aged 3�6. 2. Even though Sweden named the class for children aged between 6 and 7 a preschool

class, its curriculum is not separated from that of the primary school (UNESCO 2002). 3. Includes social and personal development and citizenship education. 4. Includes language, mathematics and arts. 5. Includes mathematics, science, social sciences, literature, arts and physical education.

References

Bae, B. 2009. Children’s right to participate-challenges in everyday interactions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17, no. 3: 391�406.

Bergen, D. 2002. The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood Research and Practice 4, no. 1. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/bergen.html (accessed June 14, 2007).

Bethell, K. 2006. To bring into play: Miss Mary Richmond’s utilization of kindred networks in the diffusion of kindergarten ideals into practice. History of Education 35, no. 2: 225� 44.

Broadhead, P. 2010. Cooperative play and learning from nursery to year one. In Play and learning in the early years, ed. P. Broadhead, J. Howard, and E. Wood. London: Sage.

Bruce., T. 1997a. Adults and children developing play together. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 5, no. 1: 89�99.

Bruce, T.1997b. Early childhood education. 2nd ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Canning, N. 2007. Children’s empowerment in play. European Early Childhood Education

Research Journal 15, no. 2: 227�36. Curtis, A. 1998. A curriculum for the preschool child: Learning to learn. London: Routledge

Falmer. David, T., and K. Goouch. 2001. Early literacy teaching: the ‘third way’. Education 3-13 29,

no. 2: 19�24. Department of Education. 1998. Curriculum for the preschool Lpfo 98. http://www.skolverket.se

(accessed March 5, 2008). Duhn, I. 2006. The making of global citizens: traces of cosmopolitanism in the New Zealand

early childhood curriculum, Te Whariki. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7, no. 3: 191�202.

Einarsdottir, J. 1998. The role of adults in children’s dramatic play in Icelandic preschools. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 6, no. 2: 87�106.

Elias, C.L., and L.E. Berg. 2002. Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for socio- dramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17: 216�38.

Fennimore, B.S. 1989. Child advocacy for early childhood educators. New York: Teachers College Press.

International Journal of Early Years Education 197

Gmitrova, V., and G. Gmitrov. 2003. The impact of teacher-directed and child-directed pretend play on cognitive competence in kindergarten children. Early Childhood Education Journal 30, no. 4: 241�6.

Gmitrova, V., M. Podhajecka, and J. Gmitrov. 2009. Children’s play preferences: Implications for preschool education. Early Childhood Development and Care 179, no. 3: 339�51.

Goouch, K. 2008. Understanding playful pedagogies, play narratives and play spaces. Early Years 28, no. 1: 93�102.

Green, A., J. Preston, and J.G. Janmaat. 2006. Education, equality and social cohesion. New York: Palgrave.

Hakkarainen, P. 2009. Learning and development in play. In Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, ed. J. Einarsdottir and J.T. Wagner, 183�222. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Hatch, J. A., ed. 1995. Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westpost: Praeger Publishers.

Henry, M. 1990. More than just play: The significance of mutually directed adult-child activity. Early Child Development and Care 60, no. 1: 35�51.

Howard, J. 2002. Eliciting young children’s perceptions of play, work and learning using the Activity Apperception Story Procedure. Early Child Development and Care 172: 489� 502.

Howard, J. 2010. Making the most of play in the early years: the importance of children’s perceptions. In Play and learning in the early years, ed. P. Broadhead, J. Howard, and E. Wood, 145�60. London: Sage.

Hurst, V. 1991. Planning for early learning: Education in the first five years. London: Paul Chapman.

Ishigaki, E.H. 1991. The historical stream of early childhood pedagogic concepts in Japan. Early Childhood Development and Care 75, no. 1: 121�59.

Ishigaki, E.H. 1992. The preparation of early childhood teachers in Japan. Part I: What is the goal of early childhood care and education in Japan? In connection with revisions of the new quidelines for kindergarten education and the new syllabus for the care and education at the day-nursery in Japan. Early Child Development and Care 78: 111�38.

Izumi-Taylor, S., I. Pramling Samuelsson, and C.S. Rogers. 2010. Perspectives of play in three nations: A comparative study in Japan, the United States and Sweden. Early Childhood Research and Practice 12, no. 1: 1�12.

Jans, M. 2004. Children as citizens: Towards a contemporary notion of child participation. Childhood 11, no. 1: 27�44.

Jensen, B. 2009. A Nordic approach to early childhood education and socially endangered children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17, no. 1: 7�21.

Jones, E., and G. Reynolds. 1992. The play’s the thing: Teachers’ roles in children’s play. New York: Teachers College.

Keating, I., H. Fabian, P. Jordan, D. Mavers, and J. Roberts. 2010. ‘Well, I’ve not done any work today. I don’t know why I came to school’. Perceptions of play in the reception class. Educational Studies 26, no. 1: 437�54.

Kitson, N. 1997. Adult intervention in children’s socio-dramatic fantasy play. Education 3-13 25, no. 1: 32�6.

Lankshear, C., and M. Knobel. 2004. A handbook for teacher research: from design to implementation. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Leat, D., and S. Higgins. 2002. The role of powerful pedagogical strategies in curriculum development. Curriculum Journal 13, no. 1: 71�85.

Lindqvist, G. 2003. The dramatic and narrative patterns of play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 11, no. 1: 69�78.

Löfdahl, A., and S. Hägglund. 2006. Power and participation: Social representations among children in pre-school. Social Phychology of Education 9: 179�94.

McCulloch, G. 2004. Documentary research in education, history and the social sciences. London: Routledge.

McGillivray, G. 2007. England. In Early childhood education and care: Policy and practice, ed. M.M. Clark and T. Waller, 19�50. London: Sage.

198 E. Synodi

Macintyre, C. 2001. Enhancing learning through play: A developmental perspective for early years settings. Abingdon, Oxon: David Fulton.

Mellou, E. 1994. Tutored-untutored dramatic play: Similarities and differences. Early Child Development and Care 100: 119�30.

Ministerial Decision �2/2107 2b. 2003. Thematic, holistic curriculum for the kindergarten. [Diathematiko enieo plesio programaton spoudon gia to nhpiagogio]. Athens: Fok (Government Gazette) 304/t.b’/13-3-2003.

Ministry of Education. 1996. Te Whāriki. http://www.educate.ece.govt.nz/�/media/Educate/ Files/Reference Downloads/whariki.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).

Ministry of Education and Research. 2006. Framework plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens.http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Barnehager/engelsk/Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens.pdf (accessed March 5, 2008).

Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture. 2000. National curriculum standards for kindergartens. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2001/04/010401.htm (accessed March 5, 2008).

Morgan, A. 2010. Interactive whiteboards, interactivity and play in the classroom with children aged three to seven years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18, no. 1: 93�104.

Moss, P. 2007. Bringing politics into the nursery: Early childhood education as a democratic practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15, no. 1: 5�20.

Øyen, E. 1990. Comparative methodology: Theory and practice in international social research. London: Sage.

Pramling Samuelsson, I., and M. Asplund Carlsson. 2008. The play learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52, no. 6: 623�41.

Pramling Samuelsson, I., and E. Johansson. 2006. Play and learning � inseparable dimensions in preschool practice. Early Child Development and Care 176, no. 1: 47�65.

Pramling Samuelsson, I., and E. Johansson. 2009. Why do children involve teachers in their play and learning? European Early Childhood Educational Research Journal 17, no. 1: 77�94.

Robson, S. 1993. ‘Best of all I like choosing time’: Talking with children about play and work. Early Child Development and Care 92: 37�51.

Robson, S. 2006. Developing thinking and understanding in young children: An introduction for students. London: Routledge.

Rogers, S., and J. Evans. 2008. Inside role play in early childhood education: Researching young children’s perspectives. London: Routledge.

Roskos, K., and S. Neuman. 1993. Descriptive observations of adults’ facilitation of literacy in young children’s play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 8: 77�97.

Rowe, D.W. 1998. The litarate potentials of book-related dramatic play. International Reading Research Quarterly 33: 10�35.

Shirakawa, Y., and S. Kitano. 2005. Research and policy issues in early childhood care and education in Japan. In International perspectives on research in early childhood education. ed. B. Spodek and O.N. Saracho, 137�60. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. 2009. Quality teaching in the early years. In Early childhood education: Society and culture, ed. A. Anning, J. Cullen, and M. Fleer, 147�57. London: Sage.

Smaragda-Tsiantzi, M. 1995. Efarmosmeni pedagogiki yia pedia prosholikis ilikias [Applied education for preschool age children]. Athens: Gutenberg.

Smaragda-Tsiantzi, M. 1996. Pedagogiki tis prosholikis ilikias [Education in the preschool years]. Athens: Gutenberg.

Soler, J., and L. Miller. 2003. The struggle for early childhood curricula: A comparison of the English Foundation Stage Curriculum, Te Whariki and Reggio Emilia. International Journal of Early Years Education 11, no. 1: 57�66.

Stephen, C. 2010. Pedagogy: The silent partner in early years learning. Early Years 30, no. 1: 15�28.

Strand, T. 2009. The social game of early childhood education: The case of Norway. In Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, ed. J. Einarsdottir and J.T. Wagner, 71� 99. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

International Journal of Early Years Education 199

Sweden, 2009/10. Structures of education and training systems in Europe. http://eacea.ec. europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/structures/041_SE_EN.pdf (accessed June 5, 2010)

Swiecicka, E., and A. Russell. 1991. The play preferences of preschool girls and boys: The effects of programme structure and teacher participation. Early Child Development and Care 74, no. 1: 109�21.

Teune, H. 1990. Comparing countries: Lessons learned. In Comparative Methodology: Theory and practice in international social research, ed. E. Oyen, 38�62. London: Sage.

Troman, G. 1996. The rise of the new professionals? The restructuring of primary teachers’ work and professionalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education 17, no. 4: 473�87.

United Nations. 1989. Convention on the rights of the child. 29/5/2008. http:www.2. ohchr.org/english/ law/crc.htm (accessed May 29, 2008).

UNESCO. 2002. Policy brief on early childhood, No 3. Integrating early childhood into education: The case of Sweden. http://unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137377e.pdf (accessed February 25, 2006).

Whitburn, J. 2003. Learning to live together: The Japanese model of early years education. International Journal of Early Years Education 11, no. 2: 155�75.

Whitebread, D. 2010. Play, metacognition and self-regulation. In Play and learning in the early years, ed. P. Broadhead, J. Howard, and E. Wood, 161�76. London: Sage.

Wing, L. 1995. Play is not the work of the child: Young children’s perceptions of work and play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 10: 223�47.

Wood, E. 2009. A pedagogy of play. In Early childhood education: Society and culture, ed. A. Anning, J. Cullen, and M. Fleer, 27�39. London: Sage.

Wood, E. 2010. Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning. In Play and learning in the early years, ed. P. Broadhead, J. Howard, and E. Wood, 9�26. London: Sage.

Wood, E., and J. Attfield. 2005. Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum. London: PCP Limited.

200 E. Synodi

Copyright of International Journal of Early Years Education is the property of Routledge and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.