How do children distinguish between ‘play’ and ‘work’? Conclusions from

the literature.

Natasha Goodhall and Cathy Atkinson*

Manchester Institute of Education, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

*Corresponding author

Contact details:

Natasha Goodhall

Trainee Educational Psychologist

School of Environment, Education and Development (SEED)

Ellen Wilkinson Building

The University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester

M13 9PL

Email: Natasha.Goodhall@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8825-2872

Dr Cathy Atkinson

Curriculum Director, Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology

Room A6.5

School of Environment, Education and Development (SEED)

Ellen Wilkinson Building

The University of Manchester

Oxford Road

Manchester

M13 9PL

Telephone: 0161 275 3511

E-mail: Cathy.Atkinson@manchester.ac.uk

ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6895-0422

1

Funding details: This research was supported by the Department for Education (DfE)

National College for Teaching and Learning (NCTL) ITEP award 2015-2018.

Disclosure statement: There are no conflicts of interest.

Biological note: Natasha Goodhall is a trainee educational psychologist on the Doctorate in

Educational and Child Psychology programme at the University of Manchester, UK.

Cathy Atkinson is Curriculum Director of the Doctorate in Educational and Child

Psychology programme at the University of Manchester, UK and a practising educational

psychologist. Other research interests include motivation, adolescent literacy, therapeutic

approaches and professional supervision.

Geolocation information: Keywords have been selected which are relevant to the article and

to searches undertaken within this study. Author ORCID identifiers have been included.

2

How do children distinguish between ‘play’ and ‘work’? Conclusions from the

literature.

From a sociology of childhood and children’s rights agenda, this review explores how

children define ‘play’ and ‘work’ in the classroom, and the contextual influences on the

development and reinforcement of these perceptions. Twelve studies were identified,

analyzed and reported using PRISMA guidelines. These studies strived to understand

children’s perspectives using child-centred methodologies, and emphasized the

importance of children’s contributions to the development of legislation, policies and

strategies in relation to their rights; namely the right to play. Findings identify that even

very young children have clear ideas about differentiating ‘play’ and ‘work’. Some

educational contexts are associated with a clearly perceived play-work dichotomy,

while with others, these concepts lie on a continuum. Blurred lines between the two

concepts are visible within constructivist classrooms that support play-based learning

and children’s choice and control.

Keywords: children; perceptions; play; work; learning; pedagogy.

Introduction

The sociology of childhood: children as active participants in research

The sociology of childhood research considers childhood a time of ‘being’ not ‘becoming’ -

‘it does not have to be approached from an assumed shortfall of competence, reason or

significance… the ‘being’ child can be understood in its own right’ (James, Jenks & Prout,

1998, p. 207). Coupled with the children’s rights discourse, supported by the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), this emphasizes the need to explore

3

children’s everyday lives and experiences. This field of research explicitly expresses that

young children are competent and sophisticated thinkers, and recognizing this competence is

integral to understanding children’s lived experiences. General Comment No. 7 (UNCRC,

2005) relates specifically to rights within early childhood (up to the age of eight), stating that

young children should be empowered to participate in decision making that impacts on their

lives.

While children are directly affected by educational policy and pedagogical decisions,

currently their perspectives have minimal presence within decision-making processes

(Redmond, 2008). Takhvar (1988) reviewed play theories, criticized the subjectivity of adult

perspectives within play theory, and advocated seeking children’s perspectives in developing

understanding about what it means to play. Mayall (2000) argued that children should be

conceptually extricated from family and professionals in order to create a better

understanding of childhood and basis for the implementation of children’s rights.

Clark (2005) acknowledged the complexities of ‘listening to young children’ (p. 502)

in research and concluded by calling for practitioners, policymakers and researchers to

remain alert to children’s differing perspectives, interests and needs in the development of

early childhood provision. Mayall (2000) suggested ‘research conversations’ in place of

structured or formal interviews, enabling children to control the pace and direction of

conversation.

Research projects within this area often adopt an ecological perspective, using

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, in recognition of how children influence

the contexts they live in and the impact of these contexts on their experiences. For example,

the Starting School Research Project (Dockett & Perry, 1999) aimed to enhance young

children’s experience of school transition through listening and responding to their

perspectives. Clark (2005) identified a range of child-centred research methods, categorized

4

into: observation; interviews; questionnaires; structured activities; and multisensory

approaches.

Children’s right to play: access within the school day

Article 31 of the UNCRC (1989) recognizes the right of every child to rest, leisure, play and

recreational activities. General Comment No. 17 (UNCRC, 2013) was later developed to

enhance understanding of Article 31 rights and strengthen their application in practice.

Within General Comment No. 17, play is defined as ‘any behaviour, activity or process

initiated, controlled and structured by children themselves… driven by intrinsic motivation

and undertaken for its own sake’ (pp. 5-6). It emphasizes that inclusive education and

inclusive play are mutually reinforcing and should be facilitated daily throughout early

childhood education, primary and secondary school. In addition to its intrinsic value, General

Comment No. 17 makes reference to the instrumental value of play - as an important means

through which children learn; and the need to create time and space for children to engage in

spontaneous play, recreation and activity, and to promote societal attitudes to support this.

The play/work dichotomy: issues and implications in practice

King’s (1979) research in the United States considered how kindergarten children defined

classroom play, proposing that understanding criteria children use in relation to concepts of

play and work can further practitioner, researcher and policymaker understanding. Many

aspects of King’s (1979) study have been replicated in subsequent research, with the

underlying ethos of facilitating the voice of the child through enabling children to take lead

roles within research. King (1979) found children classified play and work as distinct entities,

and that conceptual differences were generally consistent from child to child and class to

class. King (1979) identified the ‘illusion of play’ - when teachers used play activities as part

of the curriculum, children redefined these as work - thus ‘play’ had effectively turned into

5

‘work’. Ceglowski (1997) discussed implications of these dichotomous views and

recommended that teachers made reference to a free play-work continuum proposed by

Bergen (1988) in their thinking and planning.

In England, curriculum guidance for three- and four-year-olds (Department for

Education, 2017) states that each area of learning and development must be implemented

through a mix of adult-led and child-initiated activity, with practitioners making ongoing

judgment in relation to this balance. The statutory framework makes no reference to ‘work’

but does state that the balance should gradually shift towards increased activities led by adults

in preparation for more formal learning at aged five. Teachers described this pressure for

more adult-led activities, combined with a lack of time to prepare for play activities, as

constraints on children’s access to play (McInnes, Howard, Miles and Crowley, 2011).

A United Kingdom study (Sanders et al., 2005) examined the transition from a play-

based foundation stage (3-4 years) to a more structured curriculum (5-7 years) across a

sample of 12 schools. Children’s notions of play and work were explored, with ‘play’

consistently used by four- to five-year-olds to describe their experiences, but ‘work’ and

‘hard work’ used in anticipation of how life would be the following year. After they had

progressed and were re-interviewed, ‘hard work’, ‘more work’ and ‘loads of work’

dominated their descriptions. Children’s expressions of enjoyment were more individual -

some children embraced the challenge of ‘hard work’, others reported it as being something

they disliked doing. This divergence was suggested as being an area for further research, to

explore how the transition from a play-based to a structured curriculum impacts on children’s

perceptions and enjoyment of activities they classify as play and work. There may be

implications for children’s levels of well-being and engagement if they are making these

distinctions. Howard and McInnes (2012) found that activities perceived by children as being

6

‘like play’ were associated with increased emotional well-being and higher levels of

engagement, as children possessed greater amounts of choice and autonomy.

Daniels, Kalkman and McCombs (2001) examined the contexts within which

children’s perceptions of play and work developed and were propagated. They found

children’s interest in schoolwork and learning was lower in ‘non-learner centred’ contexts,

which can be reinforced through curricular and attitudinal systems. Daniels et al. (2001)

discussed the implications for learning motivation and long-term engagement, highlighting

the need to consider young children’s perspectives. Similarly, Howard and McInnes (2010)

proposed an effective curriculum needs to be co-constructed with children, with children’s

views integral to teachers’ practice reflections.

This creates particular challenge within a formal academic learning context, where

learning takes precedence and teachers can feel pressured into practicing through a lens of

targets and outcomes (Maynard & Chicken, 2010). Frearson, Johnson, and Clarke (2013)

described the contextual, elusive and fluid nature of play, which contrasts with predetermined

curricular learning outcomes. Thus the use of play within a learning environment can become

that of an organisational tool (Keating, Fabian, Jordan, Mavers & Roberts, 2000) - something

a child can engage in when convenient for the teacher.

The aim of this review process was to explore children’s perceptions of play; if and

how they distinguished ‘play’ from ‘work’; the cues and criteria used for making this

distinction; and the influence of context on these perceptions. Article 12 (UNCRC, 1989)

relates to children’s right to be heard; children should be able to contribute to the

development of legislation, policies, strategies affecting their educational and Article 31

rights. It is hoped that this systematic literature review will bring to the foreground empirical

evidence which advocates and promotes children’s views, in line with sociology of childhood

research and the UNCRC.

7

Methodology

Electronic databases (ASSIA; EBSCO; ERIC; PsycINFO) were used with the search terms:

child* AND play AND perceptions OR views. Given the investigative nature of this research,

and because papers did not always include the term ‘perceptions’ or ‘views’, hand searches of

key journals within the fields of play and early childhood were undertaken to improve the

search rigor. Journals hand-searched were: American Journal of Play; Early Child

Development and Care; European Early Childhood Education Research Journal; International

Journal of Play; and Journal of Early Childhood Research. Further references were harvested

from relevant papers. Mendeley was also used as a search tool to consider suggested and

related articles through its use of algorithms. To be included the article had to: involve

children aged between three and eight; be focused on children’s experiences within an

educational setting; and be published within a peer-reviewed journal in the English language.

Searches took place between October 2016 and April 2017. The Preferred Reporting Items

for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) framework (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff

& Altman, 2009) was used to structure the review and maintain accurate records of the

process (see Appendix).

The use of a formal framework for assessing the quality and relevance of the research

evidence using weighted judgments (e.g. Gough, 2007) was explored but ultimately not

applied. The epistemological stance of the review recognized all children’s voices as valid,

and as such studies were not assessed on the basis of methodological quality. However, as the

basis of this review was children having a voice and being active within the research process,

a criterion was applied that included studies needed to have placed gaining children’s

perceptions at the heart of their study. Essentially this meant children’s views needed to take

precedence, through using child-led methodologies that allowed children to express their

opinions. Given the stance of this review, it was felt that a transparent process for analysis

8

was needed as an additional inclusion criterion, and King’s (1979) initial research was

ultimately excluded. However, its contribution should be acknowledged, given the relevance

of its ethos, aims and initial findings and the fact that it provided the impetus for many

studies included in this review.

Findings

A total of 914 studies were identified as potentially relevant from the aforementioned

sources. Further examination of title and abstract led to the exclusion of 859 studies which

did not meet the criteria. The remaining 55 studies were read in detail. Given that children’s

play, even solely within school settings is multi-faceted, further criteria emerged to define

this review’s specific focus on how children distinguished ‘play’ from ‘work’. This led to a

further 43 studies being excluded and the final inclusion of 12 papers (see Table 1). Studies

were not limited by date, with research covering a broad range of time (1993-2015). This was

because, despite implementation of new early childhood policy and curricular frameworks

worldwide, analysis of the papers found that children’s perceptions remained relatively

constant.

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Author(s)/year Sample size

Participant ages

Context Country

Robson (1993) 24 4-5 3 early years settings England

Marshall (1994) 67 5-6 4 kindergarten classes, 1 kindergarten/1st grade class

USA

Wing (1995) 28 5-8 2 kindergarten - 2nd grade classes

USA

9

Cooney, Gupton & O’Laughlin (2000)

33 3-7 University laboratory school USA

Chapparo & Hooper (2001) 24 6-7 1 infant school Australia

Howard (2002) 111 3-6 6 sites (nurseries/primary schools)

Wales

Yan, Yuejuan & Hongfen (2005)

150 5-6 15 kindergartens China

Linklater (2006) 3 4-5 1 primary school England

Howard, Jenvey & Hill (2006)

92 4-6 8 pre-schools Australia

McInnes, Howard, Miles & Crowley (2011)

8 4-5 2 early years settings England

Kahyaoglu (2014) 61 3-6 2 kindergartens Turkey

Wu (2015) 48 3-5 4 kindergartens Hong Kong & Germany

Included studies covered a range of contexts, countries, settings and pedagogical approaches.

They took place in England (three studies), United States, (three), Australia (two), Wales

(one), Turkey (one), China (one), Hong Kong and Germany (one, involving both countries).

They involved children aged three to eight, though within this age group the type of setting

children attended varied considerably by country. The range of settings included classes

within nursery, infant and primary schools, pre-schools, private day nurseries and

kindergartens. Studies ranged from small scale explorative studies to large scale projects,

incorporating qualitative and quantitative data. Several studies specified pedagogical

approaches used within the research sites, from child-centred and play-based approaches, to

more academic, instructional and directive approaches. In some settings, individual teachers

had been trained in specific approaches (e.g. Montessori methods) and applied these to their

classroom practice.

10

Analysis

Deductive coding

Justine Howard and colleagues have carried out large-scale research projects (e.g. Howard,

2002) exploring children’s perceptions of play, and developed a photographic stimuli sorting

activity to identify how closely children utilize cues when classifying activities as ‘play’ or

‘work’, named the Activity Apperception Story Procedure (AASP). When making their

judgments, children attended to the anticipated cues of: teacher presence; positive affect;

space and constraint; and nature of the activity. In this review, AASP cues were used as an a

priori framework for deductive coding of some emergent data, as shown in Table 2. Each of

these four cues will now be considered in turn.

Table 2

Inductive analysis using a priori framework (Howard, 2002)

Cue use Sub-theme generated through review

Findings Authors

Space and constraint

Choice Play: Voluntary, choice over activity, materials and course of events, ‘can, get to’Work: Compulsory, lack of choice, ‘have to’

Wing (1995), Robson (1993), Chapparo & Hooper (2001), Marshall (1994), Yan et al. (2005)

Environment

Play: On the floorIn outdoor space, playgroundFreedom of physical movement‘Interest corner’Work: Tables/chairs, classroom-based, sitting still

Quiet and concentration

Kahyaoglu (2014)Linklater (2006)Wing (1995)Yan et al. (2005)Robson (1993), Linklater (2006), Chapparo & Hooper (2001)Wing (1995)

11

Teacher presence

Presence of others

Play: With other children, away (or little involvement) from adults

Work: Solitary taskGroup lessons

Howard et al. (2006), Linklater (2006), Wing (1995), Robson (1993), Yan et al. (2005)Chapparo & Hooper (2001)Yan et al. (2005)

Positive affect Emotion Play: Enjoyment, fun, happy, laughter, smiling

Robson (1993), Yan et al. (2005), Wing (1995)

Nature of activity

Activity Play: With toys

Work: Without toyswriting, paper, books

Critiqued by teachersAssigned by teachers

Listening to the teacher and obeying instructions

Yan et al. (2005), Robson (1993)Yan et al. (2005)Chapparo & Hopper (2001), Robson (1993)Wing (1995)Chapparo & Hooper (2001), Robson (1993)Chapparo & Hooper (2001)

Effort Work: Cognitive effort/challenge Wing (1995), Chapparo & Hooper (2001), Robson (1993), Marshall (1994)

Purpose Play: Fulfilment of own goals, process-oriented, a rewardWork: Fulfilment of teacher goals, product-orientedLearning specific knowledge/skills

RewardedChildren could express what they thought they were learningDegrees of fun to differentiateActive (self-initiated, responsive) vs passive work (waiting, watching)

Robson (1993), Wing (1995)Robson (1993), Wing (1995)Robson (1993), Yan et al. (2005)Marshall (1994)Marshall (1994)

Wing (1995)Chapparo & Hooper (2001)

Space and constraint: Children’s perceived level of choice within school activities impacted

on their classifications of play and work. Play was voluntary, children ‘can’ and ‘get to’ play,

and had choice over the activity, materials and course of events. Play could be taken in any

direction. Work, on the other hand, was compulsory. Children lacked choice; they ‘have to’

work (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001; Marshall, 1994; Robson, 1993; Wing, 1995; Yan, Yuejuan

& Hongfen, 2005). Children recognized the contextual nature of play and work, and shifting

12

the social context from voluntary to compulsory or creating restrictions on the way in which

children could use materials, such as blocks, crayons and sand, changed their

characterizations: ‘when you are told to do it it’s work and when you just want to do it it’s

playing’ (Robson, 1993, p. 44). Teacher signals indicated to a child whose intentions were

central to the activity (Wing, 1995).

Aspects of the environment influenced children’s classifications. For children, an

activity was more likely to be defined as play if it permitted freedom of physical movement

(Wing, 1995) and took place outdoors (Linklater, 2006). If indoors, play might take place on

the floor (Kahyaoglu, 2014) or in the ‘interest corner’ (Yan et al., 2005). Activities were

perceived by children as being work-like if they were required to be quiet (Wing, 1995) and

sitting still, on chairs and at tables (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001; Linklater, 2006; Robson,

1993).

Teacher presence: The presence and involvement of others impacted on children’s

distinctions between play and work. Play took place with other children, and with little or no

involvement from adults (Howard, Jenvey & Hill, 2006; Linklater, 2006; Robson, 1993;

Wing, 1995; Yan et al., 2005). Doing ‘work’ was considered a solitary task (Chapparo &

Hooper, 2001) within some contexts, or took place within group lessons (Yan et al., 2005),

with differences related to pedagogical approaches observable between settings and

countries.

Positive affect: Children responded to affect in their classifications, and were more likely to

define an activity as play if it involved experiencing a sense of enjoyment, fun and happiness,

evidenced by laughter and smiling (Robson, 1993; Wing, 1995; Yan et al., 2005).

Nature of activity: For children, toys were often associated with playing (Robson, 1993; Yan

et al., 2005), whereas work tended to involve paper, books and writing, and was assigned by

teachers (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001; Robson, 1993). Listening to teachers and obeying

13

instructions were components of work (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001), with the work

subsequently being critiqued by teachers. Play did not warrant such evaluation and critique

(Wing, 1995).

Work was associated with cognitive effort and challenge (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001;

Marshall, 1994; Robson, 1993; Wing, 1995), ‘when you’re not using your mind is when

you’re playing… It’s a big, big difference. You really, really try to concentrate really hard

when you’re working’ (Wing, 1995, p. 234). For some children, a challenge deemed too great

resulted in reduced self-efficacy (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001).

Play was perceived as being process-oriented and fun - some children relating

perceived level of fun to their distinctions (Wing, 1995). In play, children fulfilled their own

goals, whereas work required the fulfilment of teacher goals (Robson, 1993; Wing, 1995).

Play access was granted as a reward to children, whereas work was rewarded (Marshall,

1994; Robson, 1993). Children tended to perceive work as being useful and instrumental,

where they could learn specific skills and knowledge (Robson, 1993; Yan et al., 2005). There

were further differentiations within the concept of work, into active work which could be

self-initiated and responsive, or passive work where children considered themselves to be

‘waiting… watching… getting ready to work’ and thus still ‘working’ (Chapparo & Hooper,

2001, p. 295).

Inductive coding

A number of further themes emerged from inductive analysis of the literature (see Table 3).

The first three themes refer to children’s perceptions of the adult role in the classroom; their

perceived level of control; and the level of importance assigned to play and work. Another

theme highlights consistencies and inconsistencies within the nature of children’s

classifications, specifically how dichotomous or blended the concepts of play and work were

14

found to be. The final theme relates to the influence of context. Each theme will now be

discussed in greater detail, with themes italicized within the main text, rather than presented

as separate sub-sections, due to the degree of overlap.

Table 3

Further deductive analysis

Theme Findings Authors

Adults Differentiation between teacher involvement/direction Howard et al. (2006)Teachers as work partners, lack of involvement in play Robson (1993)Naturally occurring problems (how to proceed, materials to use, roles) resolved through interactive dialogue

Cooney et al. (2000)

Children passive in classroom, teachers defined purpose for learning relating to particular abilities

Linklater (2006)

Control Shared control in emergent curriculum (blurred lines) Cooney et al. (2000)

Spontaneity Cooney et al. (2000)Views shaped by perceived control Chapparo & Hooper

(2001)Teachers decided when children could choose Robson (1993)

Importance Hierarchy of occupations in day – work completed before engagement in preferred activities

Chapparo & Hooper (2001)

Play described in more detail, as complete events, ascribed to greater and more diverse range of activities

Robson (1993)

Teachers/structure reinforced perceptions that work has meaning/purpose

Robson (1993)

Group lessons valued over play - reflects traditional belief about academic learning (Chinese society/culture)

Yan et al. (2005)

Dichotomous or blended

Work-play continuum, ‘in between’, ‘a little bit’, ‘play working’, ‘pure playing’, ‘working-playing’

Wing (1995)

Blurred lines - emergent constructivist curriculum Cooney et al. (2000)Playing is not learning, distinct and separate Robson (1993),

Linklater (2006), Chapparo & Hooper (2001)

Less distinction between play/work when greater level of choice and decision-making

Robson (1993)

15

German children associated learning with play, HK children described play and learning as separate

Wu (2015)

Context/pedagogy

Pedagogical differences – differences in perceptions Robson (1993)

Constructivist approach - linked to spontaneity and blurred lines, playfulness blurs lines

Cooney et al. (2000)

Conceptions reflect cultural and social assumptions Wu (2015)

Adult presence had no influence on classifications Kahyaoglu (2014)Work is not necessarily learning (classes emphasizing work completion, worksheets)

Marshall (1994)

Use of adult presence as cue differed (not used in setting with greater adult involvement in play)

McInnes et al. (2011)

Little distinction between play/work, level of difficulty (nursery)Clear ideas/distinctions, development of own scripts, choice, skill and development (reception/Year-1)

Howard (2002)

Contextual nature of work and play, shifting social context from voluntary to compulsory changed characterizations

Wing (1995)

Studies indicated the contextual influence on children’s perceptions of the role of the adult in

the classroom. Children perceived adults as work partners, but rarely play partners; if an adult

was to become involved in children’s play, it would be as a helper, if something needed

sorting out (Robson, 1993). Within a more constructivist environment, naturally occurring

problems were resolved through interactive dialogue between adults and children (Cooney,

Gupton & O’Laughlin, 2000), enabling children to differentiate between teacher involvement

and teacher direction (Howard, Jenvey & Hill, 2006). McInnes, Howard, Miles and Crowley

(2011) found that if adults adopted a more multi-faceted role in the classroom and were

involved in playing alongside children, children tended not to use the cue of ‘adult presence’

to classify an activity as necessarily ‘work’. Similarly, in a Turkish study, children reported

adult presence as having no influence on their classifications (Kahyaoglu, 2014) leading the

author to suggest that the cultural context may play its part, when compared with contexts

where adults have less involvement in children’s play. To this effect, there was

16

acknowledgement of the expertise and skill needed in order to intervene in children’s play, in

ways that best facilitate children’s choice and autonomy.

In terms of the perceived importance of play and work, children received explicit and

implicit messages in a classroom context, and developed frameworks for making sense of

what they do in school. These structures reinforced children’s perceptions that the meaning of

school is ‘work’; it is ‘work’ than holds meaning and purpose, and there is little value in

‘play’ (Robson, 1993). There is a hierarchy of occupations within the school day; work is to

be completed before engagement in preferred activities (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001),

‘sometimes I’m not happy doing work… I just do it very quickly. Cos I don’t want… I want

to play’ (Robson, 1993, p. 41). Yan et al. (2005) found that 57% of the five- to six-year-olds

questioned valued group lessons over play and hypothesized that this reflected traditional

beliefs about the importance of academic learning, rooted in Chinese society and culture.

Despite this reported devaluing of play, children described play experiences in more detail

and as complete events (Robson, 1993). In much of the research, children perceived play and

work as distinct and separate entities; as far as children were concerned, work gets in the way

of play (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001; Linklater, 2006; Robson, 1993), ‘I haven’t time to do

playing sometimes’ (Robson, 1993, p. 42).

Context was influential in terms of whether children used dichotomous or blended

classifications of work and play. In a comparative study, children in German settings were

found to associate learning with play, whereas children in Hong Kong described play and

learning as separate (Wu, 2015). Wing’s (1995) study took place within classrooms that de-

emphasized direct instruction, instead adopting a child-centred, integrated approach, and

found that children recognized a work-play continuum, describing activities as ‘in between

working and playing… pure playing… pure working… playing and working all smushed

together’ (Wing, 1995, p. 237). At the play end of the continuum, there were few teacher

17

expectations and the children were free to explore materials and interact with peers. Towards

the middle, activities were generally teacher-designed but allowed for children’s choice and

creativity, and at the work end, the focus was on the product, with a requirement for mental

concentration and outcomes evaluated by the teacher. Children’s ideas about where and why

activities were placed on the continuum were not always congruent with those of their

teachers.

Cooney et al. (2000), identified similar blended learning activities, characterized by

blurred lines between play and work, shared control of activities, and spontaneity. This

suggests that in a play-based context, with a constructivist approach and ‘playfulness’

positively encouraged, children make less distinction between play and work.

Howard (2002) reported differences in cue use between nursery and primary-aged

children. Nursery children (3-4 years) perceived less distinction between play and work,

generally giving more ‘don’t know’ responses, though perceived level of difficulty affected

their judgments. Four- to six-year-olds generally had clearer ideas of how the two concepts

were distinct, were influenced by the idea of school being about work and learning and

placed emphasis on skill and personal development. Children in this older age group also

gave a high number of uncoded unanticipated responses as justifications for ‘play’, ‘work’, or

‘learning’, suggesting that children develop their own scripts with age and experience.

Perceived level of control contributes to these distinctions. Robson (1993) compared

children’s perceptions and classifications between settings; and found that within a setting

that had adopted ways of working based on the High/Scope philosophy (Hohmann, Banet &

Weikart, 1979) children often construed the engagement in ‘planning’ time as play, because it

involved choice and decision-making. ‘Small group time’, however, was not play because it

involved greater adult direction. If children perceived themselves to have a greater level of

control and decision-making in their activities, there became less of a distinction between

18

play and work (Robson, 1993). However, if children had a more passive role, with teachers

defining the purpose for learning, children only perceived having opportunities for playing

outside of the classroom (Linklater, 2006). This can negatively impact on children’s learning

and development, as when teachers emphasized work completion and used basic skills

worksheets, children perceived these activities as simply work that they had to do and were

unlikely to perceive this as learning.

In settings that allowed self-selection of activities, children made less conceptual

distinction and tended to express more positive views about ‘work’. Rather than simply being

a task that they were required to do by the teacher, work could involve ‘figuring things out…

using your brain’ (Marshall, 1994, p. 44), enabling opportunities for deeper processing and

developing richer understanding. Marshall (1994) proposed that children’s perceptions were

influenced by the underlying meaning conveyed in classroom contexts, beyond the teachers’

use of ‘work’, ‘learning’ or ‘play’. Chapparo and Hooper (2001) found that some children

associated work with fun and challenge, whilst for others work was bereft of all pleasure. The

pedagogical challenge for teachers is therefore to create environments for learning in which

children perceive work activities with the same personal interest, stimulation and ownership

as they perceive play.

Discussion

Children as active competent social participants in research

Through a sociology of childhood framework (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998), children actively

participate in the construction of their own social situations. The studies included within this

review, through their use of child-centred methodologies, have analyzed children’s acute

perceptions of their social situations, and identified the contextual influences on these

expressed perceptions. The extent to which even very young children can differentiate

19

between and articulate concepts of play and work was evident throughout, and represents

perhaps the most significant finding of this literature review.

This research provides further empirical support for Howard’s (2002) anticipated

cues: space and constraint; teacher presence; positive affect; and nature of activity. However,

inductive analysis adds additional dimensions in classifying children’s distinct and individual

ideas about how these two concepts interact, evidenced across cultures, contexts, age groups

and time. Effectively, while children’s perceptions can differ to the distinctions made by

adults (Wing, 1995), they also appear to be influenced by the pedagogical approach adopted

within their classroom. This pedagogical approach may be unique to the teacher, or it may be

promoted through curriculum content and delivery. If the adult’s role is multi-faceted and the

teaching is constructivist, children make less distinction between play and work and instead

seem to place activities on a continuum, participating in a range of blended learning

experiences, based on various cues and affordances.

Where there is a perceived play-work or play-learning dichotomy, findings suggest

learning is positioned as solitary tasks or group direct instruction, whilst play is

conceptualized as child-initiated free play, most likely taking place in the school playground.

This limits scope for a play-based learning approach, affording children the opportunity to

learn in a way that is developmentally-appropriate and enables a sense of agency. Pyle and

Danniels (2017) acknowledged teacher uncertainty around child-directed practice as a

pedagogical approach, finding that teachers who considered play and learning as separate

constructs reported challenges meeting academic demands using play-based learning.

Conversely, teachers who recognized the importance of play in academic learning involved

children in types of play situated along a child-directed to teacher-directed continuum. These

involved: uninterrupted child-led play (free play); guiding and extending children’s play

through following their lead and expanding on their interests (inquiry play); creating play

20

contexts together (collaborative play); prescribed activities with playful elements (playful

learning); and constructing games with rules (learning through games). Howard et al. (2006)

stressed the importance of teachers being playful and cooperative play partners, in order to

enrich and extend play activities and elevate the status of play as a medium for learning,

applying skill and sensitivity to prevent turning ‘play’ into ‘work’ in children’s minds. This

relates to King’s (1979) ‘illusion of play’, and shows that teachers are continuing to grapple

with these concepts well into the 21st century.

Walsh, Sproule, McGuinness, and Trew (2011) identified teachers’ need for a repertoire

of pedagogical approaches, and high levels of expertise about when to use them, in order to

meet young children’s needs and interests, and ensure children are making learning progress.

Through action research with teachers, Walsh et al. (2011) proposed a ‘playful structure’, that

bridges the dichotomy between play and work, or formal and informal, and allows for

playfulness to continue for over-fives. Playfulness is considered a ‘characteristic of the

interaction between the adult and the child and not just a characteristic of child-initiated

versus adult-initiated activities… or play-time versus task-time’ and the infusion of

playfulness into all activities allows for spontaneity and can promote enjoyment and

engagement (Walsh et al., 2011, p. 110).

In a small-scale study in England, Fisher (2011) engaged a group of self-selecting

teachers of five- to seven-year-olds in action research, which stemmed from teachers wanting

to: change formal and prescribed curricular experiences; introduce more play opportunities;

and enable greater practice reflection. Through observation and discussion, the teachers noted

changes towards more developmentally-appropriate practice, acknowledging the impact of:

classroom structure and value of an outdoors environment; modifying the balance between

adult- and child-initiated learning; reducing whole-class teaching; placing increasing value on

observing children; and adapting, planning and timetabling processes in response to

21

children’s interests and depth of engagement. All teachers reported benefits to their practice

and to the children’s well-being and development, but noted constraints in the form of limited

resources, senior management expectations and externally imposed curriculum goals and

targets.

Children’s right to play: access within the school day

General Comment No. 17 (UNCRC, 2013) emphasizes the important role of play both within

and outside of the classroom, elaborating that the realization of this right is fundamental to

the quality of childhood and children’s entitlement to optimum development.

Rasmussen (2004) explored children’s patterns of everyday life and identified the

‘institutionalized triangle’ (p. 157) - of home, school and recreational institutions - places that

are created by adults and designated as ‘places for children’. Mayall (2000) discussed the

‘scholarization of childhood’ - the idea that academic learning has crossed into all aspects of

children’s lives. The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) Play Policy (2002) acknowledged

that children spend increasing amounts of time in these supervized environments, and

advocates that children having choice is critical for their learning and emotional well-being.

Wales is unique in being the only country to have the right to play written into its legislation.

In the Reggio Emilia approach, founded by Loris Malaguzzi in northern Italy,

teachers (known as facilitators) capture and document children’s preferences, thoughts and

understanding through photographs, drawings and narrative (Gandini, 1993), and facilitate

children’s exploration of themes on short- and long-term projects. Its philosophy and

practices influenced the development of The Foundation Phase Framework for Children’s

Learning for three- to seven-year-olds in Wales (WAG, 2015), aiming to make learning

‘more enjoyable and more effective’ (p. 2). This framework acknowledges the dominant role

of play in children’s learning, stating that through play children ‘practise, consolidate their

learning, play with ideas, experiment, take risks, solve problems and make decisions’ (p. 3).

22

The Welsh curricular framework is in its early stages of implementation, and as one of the

driving forces behind its implementation is that of raising standards, evaluations of its success

to date have tended to focus on the impact on children’s results (Taylor et al., 2015). Given

the influence of context on children’s perspectives around play and work, a useful focus for

further evaluation would be on longitudinal differences in children’s perspectives, i.e.

whether a curricular framework with greater emphasis on play within the learning

environment has blurred the lines between play and work and created greater opportunity for

autonomous learning.

Deconstructing ‘play’ and ‘work’

The research highlighted contextual differences in children’s perceptions of these terms.

Within the concept of work, children identified active (self-initiated, responsive) and passive

work (waiting, watching) (Chapporo & Hooper, 2001). Invariably, where children were

required to do something by the teacher, it was classified as work. Chapparo and Hooper

(2001) proposed that personal meaning should be recognized within all learning experiences,

across the play-work continuum, supporting children to execute preference and experience

fulfilment and freedom of choice. In learning specific skills, work can and should be

satisfying and pleasurable (Wing, 1995). When exploring choice in educational contexts, the

research often points to self-determination theory, which identifies competence, autonomy,

and relatedness, as psychological needs in order to experience self-motivation and positive

mental health (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Individuals’ perceptions of whether those needs are met

determines their motivation to learn or engage in school activities. If children disassociate

work with satisfaction, it raises questions around the developmental appropriateness of the

curriculum and pedagogy and has implications for children’s intrinsic levels of motivation for

learning.

23

Children with low learning self-concept or those considered ‘underachieving’ may be

further disadvantaged by curricular inflexibility. If a task is too challenging and children no

longer feel in control of their performance, it becomes work (Chapparo & Hooper, 2001), and

according to self-determination theory, will impact on motivation to learn. Maynard, Waters

and Clement (2013) found that within a play-based experiential curricular framework, the

‘underachieving child’ can be reframed through providing positive child-initiated and/or

outdoor learning experiences for all children. Such a framework considers development as

less within-child and more of a rich and complex experiential process arising from the

interaction between the child and their social and cultural context.

Limitations

Included studies demonstrate sensitivity in listening to young children in ways that

acknowledge their competence, whilst also recognizing power differentials between adults

and children. However, it is acknowledged that this needs ongoing consideration.

Vandenbroeck and Bourvene-De Bie (2006) warn that interpretation of the UNCRC (1989)

can result in the silencing of specific groups of children and parents, particularly within

research constructing ‘children’ as a homogenous category, thus masking ethnic, cultural and

social inequalities. Such an agenda may therefore exacerbate social inequality, in that

freedom of choice does not facilitate choice for everyone.

General comment No. 17 (UNCRC, 2013) makes specific reference to groups of

children requiring particular attention to realize their Article 31 rights, these being: girls;

children living in poverty; disabled children; children in institutions; children from

indigenous and minority communities; and children in situations of conflict or disaster. While

there was some reference to ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status within the included

studies, children with special educational needs and disabilities, and minority groups were not

actively sought as participants. Within a social constructivist framework, Gray and Winter

24

(2011) sought to elicit both disabled and non-disabled children’s views on their daily

experiences of their preschool setting. This was achieved through the use of age-appropriate

methods, involving children and enabling choice at each stage of the research. This type of

approach could potentially be harnessed to capture the perspectives of children from other

marginalized groups.

In keeping with the epistemological position of the review, in recognition of all voices

being valid, a systematic quality framework with weighted judgments (e.g. Gough, 2007) was

not used in the review process. Whilst specific inclusion criteria were applied, leading to the

elimination of studies, this could be considered a limitation of this review.

Conclusion

This literature review indicates that even very young children can conceptualize and

articulate dimensions of ‘play’ and ‘work’. Dichotomous views, held by many children

within the literature, can have a potentially negative impact on children’s engagement, well-

being and ownership of their experiences. In some contexts, these dimensions are more

blended, and this appears to be influenced by constructivist pedagogical approaches and

teacher values. Findings highlight a need to reconsider curriculum practice for young

children, particularly within contexts affected by the increasing ‘scholarization’ of early

childhood and education (Mayall, 2000; Maynard & Chicken, 2010) and the pressures and

restrictions on children’s opportunities for both free play and play-based learning evident

within this review. Opportunities for children’s involvement in policy development, and

professional practice reflection amongst school staff may help develop child-centred play

policy and promote a considered approach to supporting and facilitating children’s play

amongst school-based professionals (Play Wales, 2017).

General Comment No. 1, on Article 29, ‘The aims of education’ (UNCRC, 2005)

insists upon a holistic approach - education being ‘child-centred and empowering’ (p. 2) in

25

order to inspire and motivate children - principles that should be considered within national

education policies and legislation. It further emphasizes that ‘the type of teaching that is

focused primarily on accumulation of knowledge… leading to an excessive burden of work

on children, may seriously hamper the harmonious development of the child to the fullest

potential of his or her abilities’ (p. 5). Capturing children’s views can potentially help to

create optimal learning environments for all children, which facilitate their access to their

right to play, and benefit playing, learning and development in a coordinated, seamless,

unified and dynamic fashion.

References

Bergen, D. (1988). Play as a medium for learning and development. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Ceglowski, D. (1997). Understanding and Building upon Children's Perceptions of

Play Activities in Early Childhood Programs. Early Childhood Education Journal,

25(2), 107-112. doi: 10.1023/A:1025624520956

Chapparo, C. J., & Hooper, E. (2002). When is it work? Perceptions of six-year-old children.

Work, 19, 291–302.

Clark, A. (2005). Listening to and involving young children: a review of research and

practice. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 489-505. doi:

10.1080/03004430500131288

Cooney, M. H., Gupton, P., & O’Laughlin, M. (2000). Blurring the lines of play and work to

create blended classroom learning experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal,

27(3), 165–171. doi: 10.1007/BF02694230

26

Daniels, D. H., Kalkman, D. L., & McCombs, B. L. (2001). Young Children's Perspectives

on Learning and Teacher Practices in Different Classroom Contexts: Implications for

Motivation. Early Education and Development, 12(2), 253–273. doi:

10.1207/s15566935eed1202_6

Department for Education. (2017). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage.

London: DfE.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005). ‘You Need to Know How to Play Safe’:

children’s experiences of starting school. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,

6(1), 4-18. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2005.6.1.7

Fisher, J. (2011). Building on the Early Years Foundation Stage: developing good practice for

transition into Key Stage 1. Early Years, 31(1), 31–42. doi:

10.1080/09575146.2010.512557

Frearson, M., Johnson, S. & Clarke, C. (2013). Play Pathfinders and Play Builders

Programme Evaluation. London: SQW. Retrieved from:

http://www.sqw.co.uk/files/7413/9059/0629/Play_Pathfinders_and_Play_Builders_Pr

ogramme_Evaluation_RR_231.pdf

Gandini, L. (1993). Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood

Education. Young Children, 49(1), 4-8.

Gray, C., & Winter, E. (2011). Hearing voices: participatory research with preschool children

with and without disabilities. European Early Childhood Education

Research Journal, 19(3), 309-320. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2011.597963

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and

relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228. doi:

10.1080/02671520701296189

27

Hohmann, M., Banet, B., & Weikart, D. P. (1979). Young children in action: A manual for

preschool educators. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

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(5),

489-502. doi: 10.1080/03004430214548

Howard, J., Jenvey, V., & Hill, C. (2006). Children’s categorisation of play and learning

based on social context. Early Child Development and Care, 176(3–4), 379-393.

doi: 10.1080/03004430500063804

Howard, J., & McInnes, K. (2010). Thinking through the challenge of a play-based

curriculum: increasing playfulness via co-construction. In J. Moyles (Ed.), Thinking

about Play – Developing a Reflective Approach (pp. 30-44). Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

Howard, J., & McInnes, K. (2012). The impact of children’s perception of an activity as

play rather than not play on emotional well-being. Child: care, health and

development. 39(5), 737–742. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01405.x

James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kahyaoglu, H. (2014). Play as seen by children and pre-school teachers in Turkey. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 149-153. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.172

Keating, I., Fabian, H., Jordan, P., Mavers, D., & Roberts, J. (2000). '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(4), 437-454, doi:

10.1080/03055690020003638

King, N. (1979). Play: The Kindergartners' Perspective. The Elementary School Journal,

80(2), 80–87.

28

Linklater, H. (2006). Listening to learn: children playing and talking about the reception year

of early years education in the UK. Early Years, 26(1), 63–78. doi:

10.1080/09575140500507868

Marshall, H. H. (1994). Children's Understanding of Academic Tasks: Work, Play, or

Learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9(1), 35–46. doi:

10.1080/02568549409594951

Mayall, B. (2000). The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s rights. The

International Journal of Children’s Rights, 8, 243–259. doi:

10.1163/15718180020494640

Maynard, T., & Chicken, S. (2010). Through a different lens: exploring Reggio Emilia in a

Welsh context. Early Years, 30(1), 29–39. doi: 10.1080/09575140903443000

Maynard, T., Waters, J., & Clement, J. (2013). Child-initiated learning, the outdoor

environment and the ‘underachieving’ child. Early Years, 33(3), 212-225. doi:

10.1080/09575146.2013.771152

McInnes, K., Howard, J., Miles, G., & Crowley, K. (2011). Differences in practitioners’

understanding of play and how this influences pedagogy and children’s perceptions of

play. Early Years, 31(2), 121–133. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2011.572870

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1-6. doi

10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Play Wales. (2017). The Green Time Project. Retrieved from:

http://www.playwales.org.uk/eng/wrexhamgreentimeprojectcasestudy

Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A Continuum of Play-Based Learning: The Role of the

Teacher in Play-Based Pedagogy and the Fear of Hijacking Play. Early Education and

Development, 28(3), 274-289. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771

29

Rasmussen, K. (2004). Places for children – children’s places. Childhood, 11(2), 155-173.

doi: 10.1177/0907568204043053

Redmond, G. (2008). Children’s Perspectives on Economic Adversity: A review of the

literature. Innocenti Discussion Paper No. IDP 2008-01. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti

Research Centre.

Robson, S. (1993). ‘Best of all I like Choosing Time’ Talking with children about play and

work. Early Child Development and Care, 92(1), 37–51. doi:

10.1080/0030443930920106

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of

Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist,

55(1), 68-78. doi: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68

Sanders, D., White, G., Burge, B., Sharp, C., Eames, A., McEune, R., & Grayson, H. (2005).

A Study of the Transition from the Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1. London: DfES.

Retrieved from: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FKT01

Takhvar, M. (1988). Play and theories of play: A review of the literature. Early

Child Development and Care, 39(1), 221-244. doi: 10.1080/0300443880390117

Taylor, C., Maynard, T., Davies, R., Waldron, S. Rhys, M., Power, S., Moore, L., Blackaby,

D., & Plewis, I. (2015). Evaluating the Foundation Phase: Final report, social

research no. 25/2015. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Geneva: UNICEF.

United Nations. (2001). General comment No. 1. Article 29: The aims of education. Geneva:

UNICEF.

United Nations. (2005). General comment No. 7. Implementing child rights in early

childhood. Geneva: UNICEF.

30

United Nations. (2013). General comment No. 17 on the right of the child to rest, leisure,

play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts (art. 31). Geneva: UNICEF.

Vandenbroeck, M., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2006). Children’s agency and educational

norms. A tensed negotiation. Childhood, 13(1), 127–143. doi:

10.1177/0907568206059977

Walsh, G., Sproule, L., McGuinness, C., & Trew, K. (2011). Playful structure: a novel image

of early years pedagogy for primary school classrooms. Early Years, 31(2), 107–119.

doi: 10.1080/09575146.2011.579070

Welsh Assembly Government. (2002). Play Policy. Retrieved from:

http://gov.wales/dcells/publications/policy_strategy_and_planning/early-wales/

playpolicy/playpolicye.pdf?lang=en

Welsh Government. (2015). The Foundation Phase Framework (Revised 2015). Cardiff:

Department for Education and Skills, Welsh Government.

Wing, L. (1995). Play is not the work of the child: young children’s perceptions of work and

play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 223-247. doi: 10.1016/0885-

2006(95)90005-5

Wu, S. (2015). What Can Chinese and German Children Tell Us About Their Learning and

Play in Kindergarten? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(3), 338–351.

doi: 10.1080/02568543.2015.1042125

Yan, L., Yuejuan, P., & Hongfen, S. (2005). Comparative research on young children's

perceptions of play—an approach to observing the effects of kindergarten

educational reform. International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(2), 101–112.

doi: 10.1080/09669760500170982

31

Appendix

PRISMA framework (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff & Altman, 2009)

Reasons for inclusion (screening)

Educational setting, children as participants

Reasons for exclusion (screening)

Play-based assessment, play therapy

Reasons for inclusion (eligibility)

Children in early childhood, children’s views of play and how they distinguished it

from work

Child-centred methodologies with children’s views integral

32

Transparent process of analysis

33