{"id":1122,"date":"2022-04-22T02:43:00","date_gmt":"2022-04-22T02:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learningwithleong.com\/?p=1122"},"modified":"2023-06-15T23:53:44","modified_gmt":"2023-06-15T23:53:44","slug":"play-and-learning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lifespan.education\/zh\/play-and-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"Play and Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"

Overview of Research Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The literature on play is robust. Play is widely recognized as a universal human activity, and scholars have gone to tremendous lengths to make sense of that behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, the scholarly literature on play and education is frustrating. On the one hand, play has a long history of being linked to education. For at least the last century, its value for pedagogy has been recognized. Many educationalists have acknowledged that play has something to do with learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, the scientific literature on play and learning is limited. It suffers from preoccupations and lacunae. For example, it skews heavily towards younger children and early education. From a scientific standpoint, there is very little known overall about the use of play in learning experiences for older adolescents, young adults, or adults. Further, the literature often adopts the teacher\u2019s rather than the student\u2019s perspective on learning. This makes it of limited use for students looking for ways to help them learn more effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An illustrative example is this blog post on play in higher education<\/a>, which was posted on a respected research center\u2019s blog. The analysis relies on a definition of play that is general to the point of being useless (what is essentially just attentive teaching is defined as \u201cplay\u201d). The teaching methods it describes are similarly general and not specific to the material being taught. It\u2019s based on a work of (admittedly quite good) journalism and not science. It adopts the teacher\u2019s perspective and does not provide insights that would be useful for a student. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a sense, the scientific literature is of less use than the popular literature on the topic. Many blogs, social media accounts, and study guides provide productivity and study tips that indirectly touch on play. This is valuable, though few of the recommendations appear to have been tested scientifically. We are largely limited to anecdotal data in that area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is challenging to study play because it is inherently subjective, ultimately a matter of attitude and experience, and very hard to consistently replicate in students. What constitutes play in teaching is ultimately more a matter of how something is done than what is done. It depends on the comportment and attitude of the teacher and student more than the execution of specific pedagogical strategies. This makes it very difficult to study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond that, time and again the scholarly literature points out that play is often in tension with schooling. This mismatch may subtly direct scientific interest away from play. This is unfortunate given the robust scholarly and anecdotal literature suggesting its value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This report is made up of five sections:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. What is Play?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. What is the Relationship Between Play and Education?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Does Play Bolster Learning?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. What are some Examples of Playful Teaching?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. What is the Relationship between Play and Schooling?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    What is Play?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n