To appear in E - Kathy Hirsh-Pasek



To appear in E. Zigler, S. Barnett, & W. Gilliam (Eds.) The preschool education debates.

The Great Balancing Act: Optimizing Core Curricula through Playful Pedagogy

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

Temple University

Roberta Michnick Golinkoff

University of Delaware

December 4, 2009

This research was supported by Temple University’s Center for Re-Imagining Children’s Learning and Education that the authors co-direct, by NICHD grant 5R01HD050199; NSF grant BCS-0642529; Spatial Intelligence Learning Center NSF SBE-0541957; NIH grant 1RC1HD0634970-01. Thanks to Kelly Fisher for reading earlier drafts of this paper and for suggesting ways to make the piece stronger and Aimee Stahl for help with the bibliography.

The Great Balancing Act: Optimizing Core Curricula through Playful Pedagogy

The Capulets and Montagues of early childhood have long battled over their vision for a perfect preschool education. Should young children be immersed in a core curriculum replete with numbers and letters or in a playful context that stimulates creative discovery? Cast as a feud, many have come to believe that the two approaches are incompatible. It is, however, time for family allegiances to give way to empirical findings. Playful learning offers one way to reframe the debate by nesting a rich core curriculum within a playful pedagogy. The data are clear. Young children thrive in settings with a strong curricular base that expose them to foundational skills that will be learned in school. Research also suggests that they learn best through the kinds of meaningful engagement and exploration found in play. Curricular goals need not constrain pedagogical practices; children can learn and learn well in playful classrooms.

The Case for a Core Curriculum

There is no question that academic advancement is cumulative. The roots of children’s competencies begin in infancy and early childhood. By way of example, toddlers’ oral language skills not only predict how well they will communicate in school, but also how well they will learn their A, B, Cs and understand written texts (NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Scarborough, 2001; Storch & Whitehurst, 2001; NELP Report, 2009; Dickinson & Freiberg, in press). Learning to count and to master concepts related to numbers (big and small) are also critical to later mathematical understanding and to flexible problem solving (Baroody & Dowker, 2003). Finally, a bounty of research findings now link early social competencies to later academic achievement (Raver, 2002). Training in emotion regulation that helps children control their behavior and plan effectively is related to both academic outcomes and social gains (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007). These facts alone compel us to design curricula for preschoolers that expose children to language, literacy, early number and social skills.

The last three decades produced a wealth of empirical data that tell the same story. Importantly, many of these studies have evaluated the short- and long-term effects of preschool on disadvantaged children (Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey, 2001; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002; Campbell & Ramey, 1995; Schweinhart, 2004; Weikart, 1998; Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzes, 2004; Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2006). More recently, a large survey of 6 longitudinal data sets from Britain and the US examined precursors for school readiness. Using meta-analyses, across literally thousands of children, they concluded that mathematics, emergent literacy scores, and attentional skills were the best predictors of later academic success. These results held for children from low and high socio-economic niches and equally for boys and girls (Duncan et al., 2007). Thus, we not only know that early education matters, but we are zeroing in on exactly the kinds of curricular goals that will align preschool education with later primary school subjects.

Though we have made enormous progress in understanding precursors to several academic outcomes in school (reading and math), warring factions still dominate the question of how we should teach these and other competencies to our youngest citizens. Worried about the discontinuity between preschool and elementary school pedagogy, many early education curricula are taught using what Bowman (1999) referred to as “traditional practices, which emphasize basic skills and whole-class, direct instruction, even in preschool.” An Alliance for Childhood Report, Crisis in Kindergarten, released in April of 2009, found that as these direct instruction methods gain traction, playtime is being all but eliminated. Observing two hundred kindergarten classrooms in New York and Los Angles, they find that 25% of the teachers in Los Angeles reported having no time for play in their classrooms. What was replacing this activity? Test preparation! In New York and Los Angeles, a whopping 80% of the teachers spend time each day in test preparation. These findings are consistent with Elkind’s (2008) claim that children have lost up to 8 hours a day of free play time over the last two decades and that 30,000 schools in the US have given up recess time to ensure that children have more time for academic study. This reduction in playtime is a barometer for a much deeper debate in our society about the value of play in children’s lives.

In this essay, we argue that the optimal preschool environment contains rich content delivered in a playful, whole-child approach to learning. Using the best available data as our foundation, we introduce the idea of guided play and suggest that young children learn language, reading and mathematics as well or better when they have a combination of free and purposeful play than they do when they are trained with methods of direct instruction. Our argument is based on a set of well established learning principles (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, & Singer, 2009) that illustrate how children master academic and social competencies through play. Finally, we use these principles to describe how looking at learning through play offers us a broader perspective on the skill sets that young children must develop to be successful in school and in the global world beyond the school walls. In short, the debate must no longer be about learning versus play. Rather, we must think about curricula that stress learning via play. A whole-child perspective enhances children’s social, academic, and creative development, allows for accountability and can easily align with preK-3rd grade education (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005).

Empty Vessels or Child Explorers and Discoverers?

The direct instruction approach to preschool curricula builds on a well-worn metaphor of child development viewing children as empty pails to be filled with information. Teachers become environmental agents, charged with “pouring in” facts as children passively absorb information. In this view, children learn best via explicit pedagogy. The notion of school readiness is often limited to cognitive learning (Stecher, 2002) and developmental dimensions like physical and motor growth, social skills, or the range of skills and habits that enable children to learn in the classroom (such as the ability to sustain attention) are often not addressed (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995; Kagan & Lowenstein, 2004). Derived from a more behaviorist approach to learning, the empty vessel metaphor often uses worksheets and memorization of facts and drill. Increasingly, this kind of approach is being adopted to teach children emergent literacy skills like letter-sound correspondence and vocabulary acquisition along with mathematical competencies in counting (Miller & Almon, 2009). Undoubtedly, children can and do learn in multiple ways, from both direct instruction and playful, guided learning (Datta, McHalle, & Mitchell, 1976). However, research suggests that direct instruction often leaves children feeling stressed and not liking school (e.g., Stipek, Feiler, Byler, Ryan, Milburn, and Salmon, 1998).

The whole-child perspective is exemplified by a philosophical approach assuming that the child brings much to the learning environment. Here teachers are guides. Learning is not compartmentalized into separate domains and as all learning is inextricably intertwined (Froebel, 1897; Piaget, 1970, among others). As Zigler (2007) wrote,

The brain is an integrated instrument. To most people the brain means intelligence. But the brain mediates emotional and social development. Emotions and cognition are constantly interwoven in the lives of children (p. 10).

This view suggests that the whole child integrates cognitive and emotional information in meaningful ways with the help of a rich environment and supportive adults (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). This view presupposes that children seek meaning in all they do and that through play they not only practice and hone their social skills but engage in cognitive acts that expand their repertoires (Piaget, 1970). Play is a prominent and integrative experience for young children in which they use both social and academic skills. Thus, scientists like Roskos and Christie (2002, 2004), Zigler, Singer, and Bishop-Josef (2004), and Singer, Golinkoff, and Hirsh-Pasek (2006) make compelling arguments for the central role of play as a medium for promoting school readiness in a whole, active child. In her review of the Abecedarian program (e.g., Campbell et al., 2001), the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart, 2004; Weikart, 1998) and the Chicago Child-Parent Center Project (Reynolds et al., 2004), Galinsky (2006) noted that each of these successful programs viewed children as active experiential learners using a pedagogical approach that is aligned with playful learning.

What is Playful Learning?

Playful learning is a whole-child approach to education that includes both free play and guided play – each of which is related to growth in academic and social outcomes. Researchers generally agree that free play, whether with objects, fantasy and make believe, or physical, is 1) pleasurable and enjoyable, 2) has no extrinsic goals, 3) is spontaneous, 4) involves active engagement, 5) is generally all-engrossing, 6) often has a private reality, 7) is non-literal, and 8) can contain a certain element of make-believe (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Garvey, 1977; Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003; Christie & Johnsen, 1983). The merits of free play in early education have been well documented (e.g., see Singer et al., 2006).

Guided play is distinct from free play. Here educators structure an environment around a general curricular goal that is designed to stimulate children’s natural curiosity, exploration, and play with learning-oriented objects/materials (Fein & Rivkin, 1986; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Marcon, 2002; Resnick, 1999; Schweinhart, 2004). Guided play offers educational scaffolding in which adults enrich the environment in two ways. First, they populate the child’s world with objects and toys that promote a variety of developmentally appropriate learning experiences (Berger, 2008). A room filled with books encourages children to explore print and a room with balance beams encourages children to experiment (Siegler, 1996). Second, in guided play, teachers may enhance children’s self discovery by commenting or asking open-ended questions about what children are finding, thereby encouraging children to think beyond their own self-initiated exploration. While guided play may appear to defy the play criterion of no external goal, children continue to be the active drivers of learning. Learning is child-directed and not adult controlled. Guided play is not direct instruction dressed in playful clothes.

Fisher (2009) identified two orthogonal continua that define guided play. The first varies according to who initiates the learning: either the teacher or the child. In free play, for example, the child determines what to explore. In direct instruction, the teacher controls the agenda. The second dimension is loosely defined through the structure of the learning experience. Free play is unstructured while direct instruction is a structured learning experience. Under guided play, a teacher can have well formed curricular goals but present them in ways that stimulate children’s discovery and engagement. This mixture of goal-oriented experiences with whole-child learning offers a new alternative-- guided play -- that meshes core curricula and playful pedagogy.

Having described the model in the abstract, it is worth seeing how it might be adopted in practice. A teacher may embed a variety of shapes in the free play area to promote the exploration and learning of shapes in preschool. After initial free play activities, the teacher asks children to play “Dora the Explorer” and find shapes. The teacher may enrich conceptual understanding by asking children to compare their shapes in a ‘show and tell’ activity.

To date, a number of studies have examined playful learning. The studies have been observational, correlational, and have included strict random assignment experimental settings. Furthermore, the research spans areas as diverse as cognitive and academic learning and social development. The results are uniformly positive: Children’s learning through free play and guided play is as good as, if not better, than their learning under direct instructional methods. A review of the literature makes this point (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009).

Free Play and Academic Outcomes

Through playful investigations, children develop rudimentary mathematic and science concepts (Sarama & Clements, 2009a, 2009b; Tamis-LeMonda, Uzgiris, & Bornstein, 2002). In one observational study, Ginsburg, Pappas, and Seo (2001) found preschool children spend over half of their playtime in some form of mathematic or science-related activity: 25% was spent examining pattern and shape, 13% on magnitude comparisons, 12% focused on enumeration, 6% explored dynamic change, 5% compared spatial relations (e.g., height, width, location), and 2% of the time was spent classifying objects. Similar findings were evident in Siegler’s (1996) observation that those children who played with a balance beam became experimenters who discovered the rules of weight and balance.

Free play activities thus provide opportunities to explore, practice, and refine early math and science skills. Children who engage in these activities with high frequencies also show stronger academic gains (e.g. Ginsburg, Lee, & Boyd, 2008; Wolfgang, Stannard, & Jones, 2003). Those participating in manipulative activities (e.g., block play, model building, carpentry) or playing with art materials do better in spatial visualization, visual-motor coordination, and creative use of visual materials (e.g., Caldera, McDonald Culp, Truglio, Alvarez, & Huston, 1999; Hirsch, 1996; Wolfgang et al., 2003).

A growing body of evidence suggests that free play also relates to the development of language and literacy. Symbolic play, in particular, consists mostly of enacted narratives that share vital aspects that underlie literacy, such as the identification of characters, creation of a coherent story line, and the use of props and contextual descriptions to foster a story-related reality (Dickinson, Cote, & Smith, 1993; Nicolopoulou, McDowell, & Brockmeyer, 2006; Pellegrini & Galda, 1990). This kind of play predicts language and reading readiness in kindergarten (Dickinson & Moreton, 1991; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Bergen & Mauer, 2000; Pellegrini & Galda, 1990). Additional experimental research is necessary to isolate the specific elements of symbolic play that promote different aspects of literacy development.

Guided Play and Academic Outcomes

A wealth of empirical data also shows that teachers can enrich learning through children’s play by adding math- and literacy-related materials into school environments (e.g., Christie & Enz, 1992; Christie & Roskos, 2006; Arnold, Fisher, Doctoroff, & Dobbs, 2002; Griffin & Case, 1996; Griffin, Case, & Siegler, 1994; Einarsdottir, 2005; Kavanaugh & Engel, 1998; Roskos & Christie, 2004; Saracho & Spodek, 2006; Stone & Christie, 1996; Whyte & Bull, 2008). For example, Cook (2000) found preschool children engaged in more talk and activities relating to mathematical concepts when number symbols were embedded within play settings. Neuman and Roskos (1992) also note that the incorporation of literacy props in preschoolers’ free play environments increased literacy-related activities compared to a control group. Taken together, these findings demonstrate how simple interventions that augment the academic content in free play environments stimulates academic outcomes.

In the examples above, guided play takes the form of supplementing environments that encourage children’s discovery. Teachers can also subtly structure play activities (Singer, 2002) as they co-play with children, guiding them towards imaginary activities and games that match with curricular goals (e.g., going on shopping trip and doing math). Parent/teacher training programs designed to enhance learning-oriented co-play, for example, enhance children’s imaginative play, pro-social skills, task persistence, positive emotions, and academic skills (Singer, Singer, Plaskon, & Schweder, 2003). Thus, guided play sparks enriched, meaningful learning experiences while still maintaining children’s sense of curiosity, autonomy, choice, and challenge. Taken together, the literature suggests that playful learning, in the form of both free play and guided play leads to strong academic and social outcomes for children.

Long-Term Effects of Playful Pedagogies

The real measure of learning comes not only from immediate mastery of information but also from long term retention and transfer. Here too, the evidence suggests that playful learning is an important pedagogical tool. Marcon (1993; 1999; 2002), for example, compared three preschool models on a variety of academic, behavioral, and social measures. Children in the child-initiated learning environments showed superior social behaviors, fewer conduct disorders, enhanced academic performance, and retention beyond children who experienced didactic, direct instruction or mixed methods in sixth grade (didactic instruction and play-learning). Other researchers have documented similar gains in social and academic development of child-initiated learners over didactic learners (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, & DeWolf, 1993; Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006).

Research on social outcomes of playful learning comes from the now classic High Scope project (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997; Schweinhart, Weikart, & Larner, 1986). By age 23, children who had attended play-based preschools were eight times less likely to need treatment for emotional disturbances and three times less likely to be arrested for committing a felony than those who went to preschools where direct instruction prevailed. To paraphrase Schweinhart, High Scope’s director, direct instruction does not cause these problems. Rather, not giving children the opportunity to develop socially is the unintended side effect (Washington Post, November 21, 2009). In other words, social problems arise when we fail to recognize that early education should be about the whole child.

Why Does Playful Learning Work? Seven Developmental Principles

In 2009, Hirsh-Pasek et al. articulated 7 developmental principles that summarize accumulated knowledge about how young children best learn. These same principles appear in a series of now classic books (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Berk, 2001; Zigler et al., 2004; Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009), among others, and largely reflect the developmentally appropriate practices espoused by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Perhaps it is not surprising that pedagogies consistent with these principles endorse a whole-child approach and embrace playful learning rather than direct instruction:

1. All polices, programs, and products directed toward young children should be sensitive to children’s developmental age and ability as defined through research-based developmental trajectories. Developmental trajectories and milestones are better construed through ranges and patterns of growth rather than absolute ages.

2. Children are active, not passive, learners who acquire knowledge by examining and exploring their environment

3. Children, as all humans, are fundamentally social beings who learn most effectively in socially sensitive and responsive environments via their interactions with caring adults and other children

4. Children learn best when their social and emotional needs are met and when they learn life skills necessary for success. Self-regulation, flexibility and compromise, and the ability to take the perspective of the other, are skills to be nurtured.

5. Young children learn most effectively when information is embedded in meaningful contexts that relate to their everyday lives rather than in artificial contexts that foster rote learning.

6. The process of learning is as important as the outcome. Facilitating children’s language, attentional skills, problem solving, flexible thinking, and self-regulation is crucial to children’s academic success and to accountability. Settings that promote these skills prepare confident, eager, engaged, and lifelong learners.

7. Recognizing that children have diverse skills and needs as well as different cultural and socio-economical backgrounds encourages respect for individual differences and allows children to optimize their learning.

There is virtual consensus surrounding these principles of learning for children in pre-K to 3rd grade (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005). Playful learning is one of the strong characteristics of both the successful Tools of the Mind Curriculum (Diamond et al., 2007) and of Montessori programs (Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). Playful learning also encourages sensitivity and responsiveness in teachers -- characteristics that are hallmarks of high quality programs (e.g., Galinsky, 2006). These 7 principles, based in developmental and learning science, suggest that playful learning – not direct instruction – will maximize children’s ability to learn and to transfer what they have learned as they consider learning in a whole child.

Reaping the Benefits of Playful Learning

We have suggested that Pre-K to 3rd grade education would be best served by a peace treaty between the educational Montagues and Capulets. Broad curricular goals can be achieved using playful pedagogy and the scientific evidence is consistent with this recommendation. Indeed, Copple and Bredekamp (2009) give us guidance on how we might achieve this end. They write:

Education quality and outcomes would improve substantially if elementary teachers incorporated the best of preschool’s emphases and practices (e.g., attention to the whole child; integrated, meaningful learning; parent engagement) and if preschool teachers made more use of those elementary-grade practices that are valuable for younger children, as well (e.g., robust content, attention to learning progressions in curriculum and teaching) (p. 2).

Herein lies a partial recipe for achieving the great balancing act. Playful pedagogy offers a model for how we can better prepare students to be lifelong learners who will enter a world that is increasingly relying on global, socially sensitive and creative thinkers. Research linking play with creative and flexible responses has been available for the past 40 years (Pellegrini, 2009).

Conclusion

Children in preschool today will be the work force in 2040. To best support them, we must return play to childhood and ensure that as we add more content into our preschool curricula, we commit to a playful learning pedagogy. Just when children need to discover the pleasure of learning and the importance of taking the perspective of the other, just when children should be maximizing their problem solving and creative abilities, research suggests that direct instruction reduces children’s ability to adapt in school, acquire crucial social and emotional skills, and respond to school’s demands (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). In contrast, when children have the opportunity to participate in free play; to be treated as whole children with brains and hearts; and to experience learning in a playful and engaging way, they learn and they thrive. Learning and play are not incompatible. For young children, learning is best achieved via play.

References

Arnold, D., Fisher, P., Doctoroff, G., & Dobbs, J. (2002). Accelerating math development in Head Start classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 762-770.

Baroody, A. J., & Dowker, A. (2003).  The development of arithmetic concepts and skills:  Constructing adaptive expertise. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Studies on mathematics thinking and learning.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bergen, D., & Mauer, D. (2000). Symbolic play, phonological awareness, and literacy skills at three age levels. In K. A. Roskos & J. F. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early childhood: Research from multiple perspectives (pp. 45-62). New York: Erlbaum.

Berger, K. (2008). The developing person through childhood and adolescence (8th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Berk, L. E. (2001). Awakening children’s minds: How parents and teachers can make a difference. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bogard, K., & Takanishi, R. (2005). PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to

education for children 3- to 8-years-old. Social Policy Report. XIX.

Bowman, B.T. (1999) Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics and technology education a context for learning: Policy implications for math, science, and technology in early childhood education. Retrieved on November 30, 2009 from

Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our young preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Brown, E. (2009, November 21). The playtime’s the thing: A debate over the value of make-believe and other games in preschool classes is deepening as more states fund programs. Washington Post, p. B01.

Burts, D.C., Hart, C.H., Charlesworth, R., & DeWolf, M. (1993). Developmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and academic outcomes in first grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8, 23-31.

Caldera, Y.M., McDonald Culp, A., Truglio, R.T., Alvarez, M., & Huston, A.C. (1999). Children’s play preferences, construction play with blocks, and visual-spatial skills: Are they related? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 855-872.

Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood education experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231–242.

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743-772.

Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57.

Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy play interventions on preschoolers' play patterns and literacy development. Early Education and Development, 3, 205-220.

Christie, J., & Johnsen, E. (1983). The role of play in social-intellectual development.

Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-115.

Christie, J., & Roskos, K. (2006). Standards, science and the role of play in early literacy education. In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cook, D. (2000). Voice practice: social and mathematical talk in imaginative play. Early Child Development and Care, 162, 51-63.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 (Third ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Datta, L.E., McHalle, C. & Mitchell, S. (1976). The effects of the Head Start classroom experience on some aspects of child development: A summary report of national evaluations, 1966-1969. Washington, DC: Office of Child Development.

Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.

Dickinson, D.K., Cote, L.R., & Smith, M.W. (1993). Learning vocabulary in preschool: Social and discourse contexts affecting vocabulary growth. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & C. Daiute (Vol. Ed.), New directions in child development: The development of literacy through social interaction (vol. 61, pp. 67-78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dickinson, D., & Freiberg, J. (in press). Environmental factors affecting language acquisition from birth – five: Implications for literacy development and intervention efforts. In National Research Council (Eds.), The role of language in school learning.

Dickinson, D., & Moreton, J. (1991, April). Predicting specific kindergarten literacy skills from 3-year-olds’ preschool experiences. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Duncan, G., Claessens, A., Huston, A., Pagani, L., Engel, M., Sexton, H., et al. (2007).

School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-1446.

Einarsdottir, J. (2005). We can decide what to play! Children's perception of quality

in an Icelandic playschool. Early Education and Development, 16, 469-488.

Elkind, D. (2008). Can we play? Greater Good, 4, 14 -17.

Fein, G., & Rivkin, M. (1986). The young child at play: Reviews of research. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.

Fisher, K.R. (2009). ABC’s and 1..2..3: Exploring informal learning in early childhood. Unpublished manuscript, Temple University.

Froebel, F. (1897). Pedagogics of the kindergarten. (J. Jarvis, Trans.). London: Appleton.

Galinsky, E. (2006). The economic benefits of high quality early childhood programs: What makes the difference? Report for the Committee on Economic Development. New York: Family and Work Institute.

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ginsburg, H., Lee, J.S., & Boyd, J. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. SRCD Social Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth Development Knowledge Away, XXII.

Ginsburg, H., Pappas, S., & Seo, K. (2001). Everyday mathematical knowledge: Asking young children what is developmentally appropriate. In S.L. Golbeck (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on early childhood education: Reframing dilemmas in research and practice (pp.181-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Griffin, S.A., & Case, R. (1996). Evaluating the breadth and depth of training effects, when central conceptual structures are taught. In R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 83-102.

Griffin, S.A., Case, R., & Siegler, R.S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 25-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hirsch, E. S. (1996). The block book (Third ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2003). Einstein never used flashcards: How our children really learn and why they need to play more and memorize less. Emmaus: Rodale Press.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Berk, L., & Singer, D. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kagan, S. L., & Lowenstein, A. E. (2004). School readiness and children’s play: Contemporary oxymoron or compatible option? In E. F. Zigler, D. G., Singer, & S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children’s play: The roots of reading (pp. 59-76). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.

Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (1995). Reconsidering children’s early development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. National Education Goals Panel, Goal 1 Technical Planning Group. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Kavanaugh, R.D., and Engel, S. (1998). The development of pretense and narrative in early childhood. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 80-99). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893-1894.

Marcon, R. (1993). Socioemotional versus academic emphasis: Impact on kindergartners'

development and achievement. Early Child Development and Care, 96, 81-91.

Marcon, R. (1999). Differential impact of preschool models on development and early learning of inner-city children: A three cohort study. Developmental Psychology, 35, 358-375.

Marcon, R. (2002). Moving up the grades: Relationships between preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4, 517–530.

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park, Maryland: Alliance for Childhood.

National Early Literacy Panel (2009). Developing early literacy. Jessup, MD: C.J. Lonigan & T. Shanahan.

Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on children’s literacy behaviors during play. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 203-223.

Nicolopoulou, A., McDowell, J., & Brockmeyer, C. (2006). Narrative play and emergent literacy: Storytelling and story-acting meet journal writing. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Play=Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 124-144). New York: Oxford University Press.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-442.

Pellegrini, A. (2009) Research and policy on children’s play. Child Development

Perspectives, 3, 131-136.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1990). Children’s play, language, and early literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 10, 76–88.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press.

Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional development for early school readiness. SRCD Social Policy Report, XVI, 3-18.

Resnick, L. B.  (1999, June 16). Making America smarter.  Education Week, pp. 3840.

Reynolds, A., Ou, S., & Topitzes, J.W. (2004) Paths of effects if early childhood intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 75, 1299-1328.

Roskos, K., & Christie, J. F. (Eds.). (2002). Play and literacy in early childhood: Research from multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roskos, K., & Christie, J. (2004). Examining the play-literacy interface: A critical review and future directions. In E. F. Zigler, D. G. Singer, & S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children's play: Roots of reading (pp.95-123), Washington D.C.: Zero to Three Press.

Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (2006). Young children’s literacy-related play. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 707-721.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009a). Teaching math in the primary grades: The learning trajectories approach. Young Children, 64, 63-65.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009b). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.

Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford.

Schweinhart, L. (2004). The High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). Lasting differences: The High/Scope

Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study through age 23. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Schweinhart, L.J., Weikart, D., & Larner, M.B. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 15-45.

Shonkoff, J. & Phillips, D. (Ed). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York: Oxford.

Singer, J.L. (2002). Cognitive and affective implications of imaginative play in

childhood. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Child and adolescent psychiatry: A comprehensive

textbook (Third ed., pp. 252-263). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

Singer, D. G., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (Eds.). (2006).  Play=Learning: How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Singer, D., Singer, J., Plaskon, S., & Schweder, A. (2003). The role of play in the

preschool curriculum. In S. Olfman (Ed.), All work and no play: How

educational reforms are harming our preschoolers (pp. 43-70). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. S. Hamilton, S. P. Klein, & B. M. Stecher Rand (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (p. 79). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Millburn, S., & Salmon, J. M. (1998). Good beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young children for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 41-66.

Stone, S. J., & Christie, J. F. (1996). Collaborative literacy learning during socio-dramatic play in a multiage (K-2) primary classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 123-33.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2001). The role of family and home in the literacy development of children from low-income backgrounds. In P. R. Britto & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), The role of family literacy environments in promoting young children’s emerging literacy skills (pp. 53–71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S, Uzgiris, I. C., & Bornstein, M. (2002). Play in parent - child interactions. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in parenting (vol. 5, Second ed., pp. 221-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).

Weikart, D. P. (1998). Changing early childhood development through educational intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27, 233–237.

Whyte, J.C., & Bull, R. (2008). Number games, magnitude representation, and basic number skills in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 588-96.

Wolfgang, C.H., Stannard, L.L., & Jones, I. (2003). Advanced construction play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 467-475.

Zigler, E. F. (2007). Giving intervention a head start: A conversation with Edward Zigler. Educational Leadership, 65, 8-14.

Zigler, E. F., & Bishop-Josef, S. J. (2006). The cognitive child versus the whole child: Lessons from 40 years of Head Start. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 15 -35). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zigler, E., Singer, D., & Bishop-Josef, S. (Eds.) (2004). Children’s play: The roots of reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download