Abstract
Background: Scholars of play in the field of education highlight the numerous benefits of using guided play as a pedagogy to improve teaching and learning. However, guided play presents a challenge for teachers in a school setting, as it requires a balance between free play and structured play, which is difficult for teachers to navigate.
Aim: The research inquired into the development of a guided play framework in response to student teachers being unable to guide learners during a guided play activity.
Setting: The framework was developed at a university involving first-year Foundation Phase student teachers to address the major gap that was identified from the pre-service teacher education course on guided play.
Methods: Data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, analysis of students’ work and a research journal.
Results: The major gap identified was that student teachers did not understand what it means to guide during a guided play activity. Therefore, a guided play framework was developed to facilitate students’ understanding of their guiding role.
Conclusion: The framework offers guidance to pre-service teachers on what to take into account when designing and implementing guided play, clarifying their guiding role.
Contribution: Research on preparing preservice teachers to implement guided play is limited. This framework contributes to preservice teachers’ skill set.
Keywords: guided play; playful learning; Grade R (Kindergarten); pre-service teachers; open-ended questions.
Introduction
Over the years, there have been various debates in Early Childhood Education (ECD) about whether direct instruction or free play is more beneficial for children’s learning and development (Mohammad 2024; Pyle & Danniels 2017; Skene et al. 2022; Yu et al. 2018). Recently, positive interest has been sparked in the concept of playful learning (Boysen et al. 2022; Zosh et al. 2022). Playful learning is an ‘overarching term that includes free play and guided play’ (Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2020:58).
In free play, learners ‘determine the rules of the play they create and choose whom they will play with. They make changes related to the play if they want’ (Tok 2022: 958). In contrast, direct instruction does not consider learner agency and is anchored in the idea that learners must be taught new information directly (Zosh et al. 2024).
Guided play incorporates elements of direct instruction to propel learners to focus on the intended learning goal, while considering that learners are also active participants in their learning (Wickstrom & Pyle 2025). In other words, guided play is an arena where free play and direct instruction combine to support positive learning (Cekaite & Simonsson 2023). It is through teachers’ involvement in guided play that a balance between free play and direct instruction is found (Cheng et al. 2024).
Specifically, guided play involves the teacher setting up the environment with a precise learning goal in mind, while allowing the learners the agency to explore within this prepared setting (Paxton 2022). For example, a teacher might set up a pretend play supermarket with play money and food items to facilitate knowledge of math and literacy skills. As the teacher sets up the environment, learners decide on their roles, such as cashier or delivery person.
Several empirical studies have shown that guided play helps develop numeracy, spatial awareness, language and literacy skills in children (Berson et al. 2023; Bohr & Acar 2023; Gawthorpe & Campbell Davidson 2023; Gibbs & Reed 2021). These empirical studies suggest that guided play can be a valuable tool for teaching and learning. However, literature regarding step-by-step guidance on implementing guided play in a school setting is scarce. In response to this issue, I designed a guided play framework to facilitate the design and implementation of guided play activities.
The structure of the article unfolds as follows. Firstly, the article will discuss why I embarked on developing the framework. Secondly, the article will discuss literature that informed the framework. Thirdly, the article will present the framework. Lastly, the article will discuss the limitations of the framework and suggest recommendations for future research.
Background and context of designing the framework
The development of this framework was driven by research I conducted in my PhD study (Ndabezitha 2023).The study aimed to design an online course for the first-year Foundation Phase1 students to prepare them to use guided play in lessons they design deliberately. The course was developed in response to the limited literature about preparing pre-service teachers to use guided play in lessons (Walsh & Fallon 2021).
The PhD study (Ndabezitha 2023) consisted of three phases as the study followed the design-based research genre (Bakker 2018; Gravett & Eadie 2021; McKenney & Reeves 2018). The first phase involved identifying the problem, articulating the initial design principles and designing the course. The second phase involved an empirical investigation of first-year Foundation Phase students’ experiences with the guided play course. During this phase, multiple data generation methods were used, such as questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, stimulated recall interviews, the course presenter’s journal and analysis of guided play activities designed by students. The final phase involved evaluation of the initial course design principles using the criteria of validity, feasibility and effectiveness (see Section 3.3 in Ndabezitha 2023).
Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education at the University of Johannesburg. All participants gave consent to take part in the study, and the ethical procedures were explained. Participants were guaranteed that their identities would remain confidential and were told that the results would be included in a research report.
One of the main findings of my research was that, while student teachers learned how to design guided play activities, they found it difficult to implement them. This finding pointed to a major gap in the course. Based on the videos of guided play activities, it was clear that when learners struggled with the play activity or deviated from it, student teachers did not have the skill to guide them. Student teachers merely repeated the instructions for the play activity, and, in some instances, they would demonstrate the play activity again. Repeating instructions does not serve the purpose in this case because it does not necessarily mean that learners will understand what they need to do or learn. Drawing on Vygotsky and Cole’s (1987) notion of scaffolding, the teacher needs to guide learners toward what they need to learn.
Drawing on the gap I identified from my PhD findings, I conducted a literature search to find frameworks that could help student teachers implement guided play. I found two frameworks. The first one concerned child exploration through play (Yu 2022). The second concerned strategies for early learning of mathematics through play (Wickstrom & Pyle 2025). These two frameworks could not be used as they did not address the gap directly. Recently, DuBois-Garafalo et al. (2025) published a guidebook to help early childhood teachers who do not have access to their practice-based coaching programme. The guidebook provides strategies on how to implement their three-part Guided Play Framework. This Framework aims to help teachers incorporate play-based learning. In my view, the guidebook provides sound step-by-step guidance to teachers on what they need to do for each part of the framework. In addition, it provides scenarios and examples of questions that teachers can use in each phase.
The framework presented in this article shares some elements with DuBois-Garafalo et al.’s (2025) Guided Play Framework. The similar part, in particular, is the three-part structure. My framework has three phases. The other similar part is the use of open-ended questioning. My framework incorporates a design element and also emphasises the characteristics of play that foster learning.
Presentation of the framework
Two main components make up the framework. The first component is the design of the guided play activity, and the second focuses on the implementation. Furthermore, the implementation component has three main stages: preparation before play, active engagement during the play session and reflection after the activity. Figure 1 presents a visual representation of the guided play framework.
 |
FIGURE 1: A framework for designing and implementing guided play activities. |
|
The design process of the framework
As discussed in the introduction, guided play presents various benefits that facilitate learning. Before I start explaining the design process of this framework, I must discuss the core elements of guided play and how they work interchangeably.
Guided play comprises two main components: learner agency and teacher guidance. In contrast to direct instruction, learner agency in guided play acknowledges that learners can discover, explore and lead (Abdolmaleki et al. 2021; Crane 2017; Skene et al. 2022). Learner agency, as used here, refers to ‘the capacity of learners to take responsibility for and to direct and determine their learning paths’ (Hase & Blaschke 2021:25). Nesbitt et al. (2023) asserted that active and engaged learners learn more effectively. The information actively discovered by learners is more likely to be retained as opposed to information observed passively (Dehaene 2020; Greenwood et al. 2022). Learner agency in guided play also evokes positive emotions, such as joy and excitement (Greipl et al. 2021). These emotions drive effective learning.
Furthermore, positive emotions strengthen and stabilise the brain’s neuronal network, which facilitates better learning (Kumar 2023). This idea is further advanced by Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007), who contend that cognition and emotions are intertwined. This indicates that feelings have an impact on the learning process. For instance, while emotions like fear might cause discomfort when learning a new or challenging concept, joy can engender positivity, which in turn helps learners learn the difficult concept (Tan et al. 2021). Put differently, play is free of threat and promotes feelings of safety (Dubbels 2016). Finally, learner agency allows learners to apply what they have discovered in their learning (Yu et al. 2018).
Teacher guidance in guided play requires the teacher to plan a playful activity to achieve specific learning objectives for the concept being taught and to subtly steer learners towards the learning objectives (Weisberg et al. 2016). This highlights the difference between guided and free play (Yu et al. 2018). According to Mohan et al. (2022), free play has its own merits; however, free play is not an effective method that can be used to teach specific objectives in lessons because even if the objectives are stated, it would be difficult for learners to learn without teacher guidance (Haile & Ghirmai 2024). Teacher guidance in guided play is important because the teacher guides the learners towards the objectives by modelling (Acquah, Szelei & Katz 2020; Grootenboer, Grootenboer & Marshman 2015), asking open-ended questions (Gravett 2022) and providing feedback (Wiliam 2011).
Now that I have discussed the two core elements of guided play, I will discuss the process followed to design the framework and how various bodies of literature influenced the design.
Identifying the problem
Based on my experience in offering a course on guided play with first-year students, I found that they could design guided play activities but could not implement them. This presented a challenge because the course aimed to prepare students for designing and implementing guided play activities. This problem became the foundation for developing the framework, which is the subject of this article. At the time, when I searched the literature, I found that there was a lack of frameworks that could support student teachers in implementing guided play. However, as mentioned in Section 2 of this article, a Guided Play Guidebook was developed this year to assist teachers in implementing guided play activities. My framework incorporates some elements of the Guided Play Guidebook.
Assumptions that informed the framework
It is important to provide assumptions that underpin a framework because this provides clarity and prevents the framework from being misinterpreted and misapplied. I considered three assumptions when designing the framework. The three assumptions are Grade R, the South African schooling system and the characteristics of play.
This framework is based on Grade R (Kindergarten) because the course focuses on teaching Grade R. However, this does not mean that the framework does not apply to other grades. It can be adapted for use in other grades, including high school.
The second assumption that underpins this framework is the South African context. This means that I considered some of the limitations concerning the South African curriculum, known as the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Standard (CAPS).2 In South Africa, teachers must follow the Annual Teaching Plan (ATP)3 that the DBE provides. The district officials visit the schools to check if the ATP has been covered. If not, the teachers must design a catch-up plan and attend interventions to help them cover the content. Additionally, some teachers in South Africa teach up to 70–90 learners per class. Although this framework considers the South African context, it can be modified to suit any educational system worldwide.
The last assumption is that guided play activities should reflect play characteristics in relation to the science of learning literature, which informs us about how human beings learn. The characteristics of play that promote learning are joy, active engagement, meaningful learning, social interaction and iteration (Zosh et al. 2017). These are further discussed in the following section.
Characteristics of play in relation to the science of learning literature
The literature suggests that play comprises various characteristics (Mardell et al. 2016, 2023). However, for the purpose of this guided play framework, I selected those identified by Zosh et al. (2017). Figure 2 depicts the characteristics of play that will be discussed briefly thereafter.
The first characteristic of play is joy. In guided play, the element of learner agency leads to intrinsic motivation. As discussed by cognitive research, positive emotions, such as joy, release dopamine, which helps with neural connections and reduces stress (Immordino-Yang & Damasio 2007). However, this does not imply that guided play only invokes positive emotions. Sometimes, learners may be frustrated during the process, but there is a sense of fulfilment once the play activity is completed. This aligns with the guided play engagement phase of the framework, where open-ended questions and scaffolding assist learners in sustaining intrinsic motivation. When learners feel frustrated, the guided support propels them to persist, which leads to a sense of fulfilment and joy that supports learning.
Active engagement is another characteristic of play. In their study, Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2022) found that meaningful learning requires mental effort. This perspective is consistent with the view of Willingham (2021), who suggested that engagement is not about physical movement or conversation but cognitive processing. Simply put, active engagement is about thinking and processing information in your mind. This aligns with the guided play activity engagement phase of the framework, where observation helps assess whether learners are truly engaged. Additionally, using open-ended questions ensures that learners are participating and actively thinking, analysing and making meaningful connections.
The third characteristic of play is meaningfulness. Meaningfulness in play allows learners to connect the learning experience with what is familiar (Zosh et al. 2018). This connection to prior knowledge is a crucial aspect of the pre-play phase, where structuring the environment appropriately ensures that learners can relate to the play activity meaningfully. In turn, this increases their understanding while they are learning. (Zosh et al. 2017).
Social interaction is another important characteristic of play. As learners play with others, they learn to challenge, question and criticise each other. This process adds social meaning (Zosh et al. 2018). This implies that through their interactions with others, they gain a better shared understanding and different perspectives. In addition, when learners play with each other, they develop a deeper learning experience (Gravett 2022). This happens through sharing and building on each other’s ideas and collaborating when solving a problem during play. This does not imply that learners who play alone or engage in solitary play do not benefit from such activities (Coplan et al. 2014). However, social interaction is important because it also develops 21st-century skills needed for the fast-changing world, such as communication, critical thinking, creativity and collaboration (Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2020). In the guided play engagement phase, learners are taught to collaborate and challenge each other using open-ended questions, while the after-play reflection phase allows them to consolidate their shared experiences, reinforcing deeper learning and 21st-century skills.
The last characteristic is iteration. When learners play, they go through trial and error, developing their perseverance. Kleibeuker et al. (2016) and Van Hoeck, Watson and Barbey (2015) provide a useful understanding of how iteration during play impacts brain development. They note that iteration improves brain networks connected to flexible thinking and creativity. This characteristic of play is activated during the guided play engagement phase, where learners test solutions, respond to scaffolding and refine their understanding.
Planning the environment
Guided play allows teachers to design learning environments that spark curiosity and facilitate learner exploration, which are important for deeper learning (Syarif, Nisaa & Fitriani 2024). This perspective is consistent with the view of Singh and Manjaly (2022), who suggest that teachers who evoke curiosity help learners develop interest in learning. As Syarif et al. (2024:1) emphasise that ‘curiosity is a fundamental human trait and a cornerstone of learning’. Curiosity can be evoked in a classroom by teachers designing a positive environment that includes open-ended questions and by using resources that encourage inquiry (Chu et al. 2021). This aligns with the pre-play phase in the guided play framework, where teachers intentionally structure the learning environment to spark curiosity and encourage exploration.
Questioning: Open-ended questions as a core strategy
An examination of the literature suggests that the nomenclature for ‘open-ended questions’ varies. For example, Svanes and Andersson-Bakken (2023) refer to them as open questions. Kalsoom, Batool and Irshad (2021) call them display questions, while others call them divergent questions (Astrid et al. 2019; Lisdawati, Bhuana & Syathroh 2024). However, this article uses the term open-ended questions to refer to questions that do not have one right answer and which encourage learners to explore and activate their thinking (Gravett 2022). In designing the guided play framework, the decision to use the term ‘open-ended questions’ is intentional, as they encourage learner agency. Their application is incorporated within both the engagement and reflection phases of guided play in the framework.
Because open-ended questions allow learners to participate actively in exploring concepts (Kim 2020), dialogical teaching is fostered (Van Der Merwe, Ramsaroop & Fonseca 2022), which leads to deeper learning. This notion aligns with Svanes and Andersson-Bakken (2023), who argue that open-ended questions make engagement in conversations accessible to learners and that this helps them to understand and reason. I therefore argue that open-ended questioning should serve as a core strategy in guided play, allowing teachers to assess learners’ understanding while steering them toward the learning objectives (Ndabezitha 2023).
According to Gravett (2022:42), if open-ended questions are used appropriately, they could ‘also foster inquisitiveness (curiosity) and an inquiry attitude’. This connects to the engagement phase in my framework, where teachers use open-ended questions to guide learners, observe their thinking and scaffold learning.
Using open-ended questions during guided play allows learners an opportunity to reflect. The term ‘reflection’ can be interpreted in different ways. In this article, reflection is understood as ‘asking questions that result from thinking critically about a learning experience to strengthen current or inform future learning’ (Mardell et al. 2023). Reflection during or after play enables learners to discern what was confusing to them (Schulz, Marc & Andreas 2022). Reflection is part of the after-play reflection phase in my framework, where learners consolidate their experiences and respond to post-play questions, enabling them to critically reflect and strengthen their learning.
When learners can reflect on their play, they can make their thinking visible to others. This, in turn, can develop metacognitive awareness. Metacognition ‘is the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s cognitive processes’ (Maor et al. 2023:2). Schneider and Stern (2010) suggest that metacognition plays a crucial role in learning because if learners are not aware of their thinking, they are less likely to notice mistakes or gaps in what they know. Through inculcating metacognitive skills, learners should be able to identify, monitor and deal with errors during the learning process (Van Der Merwe et al. 2022). Metacognition is activated in the guided play activity engagement phase in my framework, where open-ended questions serve as a guiding tool for teachers to facilitate learner thinking, encourage exploration and support metacognitive development.
Limitations of the framework and suggestions for further research
In order to assess the usability and effectiveness of the framework, I shared the framework with experts who are highly experienced in the field of teacher education. The purpose of sharing the framework was to seek feedback and input to validate the framework and identify areas that need improvement or further development. The feedback was provided, and I refined the framework based on the feedback received. The experts particularly pointed out that I needed to explain how the framework relates to the characteristics of play.
However, this does not indicate that the framework is perfect. The shortcoming of the framework is that student teachers have not implemented it, and therefore, its efficacy cannot be gauged. As a result, it is imperative to conduct a pilot with a group of student teachers in future iterations of this research to gather constructive feedback to enhance the framework for better practical applicability.
Conclusion
As previously mentioned, the framework was developed because of the empirical findings arising from the researcher’s final reflection phase of her PhD research. While the framework was developed through research conducted with student teachers in a teacher education programme to prepare student teachers to use guided play as a core pedagogy, in-service teachers could also use this framework to design and implement guided play activities.
The framework offers guidance to teachers on what to take into account when designing guided play activities and on how to implement a guided play activity to teach a curriculum theme. The envisioned goal of teachers utilising this framework is to lessen the tension between play and learning in a school setting by showing teachers that playful learning is not an add-on to the curriculum but an effective teaching method.
Acknowledgements
This article is partially based on the author’s dissertation titled ‘Design principles for a pre-service teacher education course on guided play’ towards the degree of Childhood Education (PhD) in the Department of Childhood Education, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, on 22 April 2023, with supervisor Professor S.Gravett. The supervisor was not involved in the preparation of this manuscript and were not listed as co-authors. The manuscript has since been revised and adapted for journal publication. It is available here: https://hdl.handle.net/10210/505928.
Competing interests
The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
Author’s contributions
L.B.N. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg, Faculty of Higher Degrees Committee. (No. Sem 1-2020-037).
Funding information
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in https://www.proquest.com/openview/1a9a21e6b799ffe6a23b34196a8762ce/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Abdolmaleki, S., Khosravi, M., Ghaderi, M. & Maleki, H., 2021, ‘The comparison of guided play, free play and direct instruction effects in children’s learning of first grade science’, Research in Curriculum Planning 17(67), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v3i1.6601
Acquah, E.O., Szelei, N. & Katz, H.T., 2020, ‘Using modelling to make culturally responsive pedagogy explicit in preservice teacher education in Finland’, British Educational Research Journal 46(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3571
Astrid, A., Amrina, R.D., Desvitasari, D., FitrianiI, U. & Shahaba, A., 2019, ‘The power of questioning: Teachers’ questioning strategies in the EFL classrooms’, Indonesian Research Journal in Education| IRJE| 3(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v3i1.6601
Bakker, A., 2018, ‘Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers’, Nature 1, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203701010
Berson, I.R., Berson, M.J., McKinnon, C., Aradhya, D., Alyaeesh, M., Luo, W. et al., 2023, ‘An exploration of robot programming as a foundation for spatial reasoning and computational thinking in preschoolers’ guided play’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 65, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.015
Bohr, C. & Acar, S., 2023, ‘Supporting language acquisition and peer interaction through guided play in a multilingual classroom’, Young Exceptional Children 26(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/10962506211042346
Boysen, M.S.W., Sørensen, M.C., Jensen, H., Von Seelen, J. & Skovbjerg, H.M., 2022, ‘Playful learning designs in teacher education and early childhood teacher education: A scoping review’, Teaching and Teacher Education 120, 103884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103884
Cekaite, A. & Simonsson, M., 2023, ‘Guided play supporting immigrant children’s participation and bilingual development in preschools’, International Journal of Early Childhood 55(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-023-00370-1
Cheng, Z.J., Ma, C.X., Huang, R. & Bai, Y., 2024, ‘Preschool children’s deeper-learning in mature play’, Early Childhood Education Journal 53(5), 1391–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01673-1
Chu, S.K.W., Reynolds, R.B., Tavares, N.J., Notari, M. & Lee, C.W.Y., 2021, 21st Century skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice, Springer International Publishing, Singapore.
Coplan, R.J., Ooi, L.L., Rose-Krasnor, L. & Nocita, G., 2014, ‘I want to play alone: Assessment and correlates of self-reported preference for solitary play in young children’, Infant and Child Development 23(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1854
Crane, A., 2017, ‘Comparing guided play and direct instruction: Effectiveness in increasing mean length of utterances of preschool-age students in special education’, Doctoral dissertation, California State University Dominguez Hills, Scholaworks Calstate, viewed 20 June 2024, from https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/vt150t79f.
Dehaene, S., 2020, How we learn: The new science of education and the brain, Penguin UK, London.
Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2011, Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS): Foundation phase grades R-3, Government Printer, Pretoria.
Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2012, Macro indicator report, Department of Basic Education, Pretoria.
Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2022, Department of Basic Education annual performance plan 2022/2023, DBE, Pretoria.
Dubbels, B.R., 2016, ‘Pedagogy and play: Creating a playful curriculum for academic achievement and engaged learning’, in K., Schrier Shaenfeld (ed.), Learning, education and games: Bringing games into educational contexts, vol. 2, pp. 87–115, ETC Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
DuBois-Garafalo, K., Berube, J., Bond, S. & Nesbitt, K.T., 2025, An active playful learning guidebook for New Hampshire teachers, University of New Hampshire, viewed 19 March 2024, from https://scholars.unh.edu/play_based_learning/5.
Gawthorpe, A. & Campbell Davidson, K., 2023, ‘Active learners in numeracy: Implementing guided play for early numeracy learning’, Research in Teacher Education 13(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.8w731
Gibbs, A.S. & Reed, D.K., 2021, ‘Shared reading and guided play for vocabulary instruction with young children’, Teaching Exceptional Children 53(4), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920968874
Gravett, S. & Eadie, S., 2021, ‘The Sandbox project: Developing competencies for a changing world in South African school’, in C. McNaught & S. Gravett (eds.), Embedding social justice in teacher education and development in Africa, pp. 163–178, Routledge, Johannesburg.
Gravett, S., 2022, ‘Cognition and emotion are intertwined: Creating emotionally positive learning environments’, in S. Gravett (ed.), Teaching for learning in a fast-changing world, pp. 24–38, University of Johannesburg.
Greenwood, R., Austin, S., Bacon, K. & Pike, S., 2022, ‘Enquiry-based learning in the primary classroom: Student teachers’ perceptions’, Education 3–13 50(3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1853788
Greipl, S., Klein, E., Lindstedt, A., Kiili, K., Moeller, K., Karnath, H.O. et al., 2021, ‘When the brain comes into play: Neurofunctional correlates of emotions and reward in game-based learning’, Computers in Human Behavior 125, 106946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106946
Grootenboer, P., Grootenboer, K. & Marshman, M., 2015, Mathematics, affect and learning, Springer, Singapore.
Haile, T.S. & Ghirmai, D.J., 2024, ‘Play-based learning: Benefits and challenges of its implementation’, ESI Preprints 28, 15. https://doi.org/10.19044/esipreprint.4.2024.p15
Hase, S. & Blaschke, L.M., 2021, ‘The pedagogy of learner agency’, in S. Hase & L.M. Blaschke (eds.), Unleashing the power of learner agency, pp. 4–12, viewed 22 October 2024, from https://edtechbooks.org/up/peda.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hadani, H.S., Blinkoff, E. & Golinkoff, R.M., 2020, A new path to education reform: Playful learning promotes 21st century skills in school and beyond, Policy Brief, Center for Universal Education, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 1–25.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J.M., Hadani, H.S., Golinkoff, R.M., Clark, K., Donohue, C. & Wartella, E., 2022, A Whole New World: Education Meets the Metaverse, Policy Brief, Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution.
Immordino-Yang, M.H. & Damasio, A., 2007, ‘We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education’, Mind, Brain, and Education 1(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x
Kalsoom, A., Batool, H. & Irshad, S., 2021, ‘Effectiveness of referential and display questions in classroom interactions’, Ilkogretim Online 20(5), 7023–7031, viewed 10 May 2025, from https://ilkogretim-online.org/index.php/pub/article/view/3263.
Kim, M., 2020, ‘Teacher scaffolding strategies to transform whole-classroom talk into collective inquiry in elementary science classrooms’, Alberta Journal of Educational Research 66(3), 56957. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v66i3.56957
Kleibeuker, S.W., De Dreu, C.K.W. & Crone, E.A., 2016, ‘Creativity development in adolescence: Insight from behavior, brain, and training studies: Creativity development in adolescence’, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2016(151), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20148
Kumar, A.A., 2023, ‘Perspective chapter: Emotive cognition strategies on enhancing meaningful learning among undergraduate student-teachers’, in O.S. Delfia (ed.), Education annual volume 2023, Education and Human Development series, vol. 8, pp. 12–35, IntechOpen, London.
Lisdawati, I., Bhuana, G.P. & Syathroh, I.L., 2024, ‘Exploring divergent questions and cold calling in a class discussion’, JELA (Journal of English Language Teaching, Literature and Applied Linguistics) 6(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.37742/jela.v6i1.124
Maor, R., Paz-Baruch, N., Grinshpan, N., Milman, A., Mevarech, Z., Levi, R. et al., 2023, ‘Relationships between metacognition, creativity, and critical thinking in self-reported teaching performances in project-based learning settings’, Thinking Skills and Creativity 50, 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101425
Mardell, B., Ryan, J., Krechevsky, M., Baker, M., Schulz, S. & Liu-Constant, Y., 2023, A pedagogy of play: Supporting playful learning in classrooms and schools, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Boston, MA.
Mardell, B., Wilson, D., Ryan, J., Ertel, K., Krechevsky, M. & Baker, M., 2016, Towards a pedagogy of play, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
McKenney, S. & Reeves, T., 2018, Conducting educational design research, Routledge, New York.
Mohammad, C.A., 2024, ‘Current issue: Rethinking the role of early childhood education: Academic vs child-centered learning’, Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Educational & Psychological Sciences 16(2), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.54940/ep18212365
Mohan, M., Celshiya, R., Karuppali, S., Bhat, J.S. & Anil, M.A., 2022, ‘Pretend play in pre-schoolers: Need for structured and free play in pre-schools’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 12(1), 1092. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v12i1.1092
Ndabezitha, L.B., 2023a, ‘Design principles for a pre-service teacher education course on guided play’, Doctoral dissertation, University of Johannesburg, viewed 06 June 2025, from https://hdl.handle.net/10210/505928.
Ndabezitha, L.B., 2023b, ‘Play and playfulness for teaching and learning’, in S. Gravett (ed.), Teaching for learning in a fast-changing world, pp. 57–95, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.
Nesbitt, K.T., Blinkoff, E., Golinkoff, R.M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2023, ‘Making schools work: An equation for active playful learning’, Theory Into Practice 62(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2023.2202136
Paxton, K., 2022, ‘Play and write: A guided-play writing workshop in a South African classroom’, American Journal of Play 14(2), 149–172.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771
Schneider, M. & Stern, E., 2010, ‘The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge: A multimethod approach’, Developmental Psychology 46(1), 178. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001670
Schulz, T.S., Marc, M. & Andreas, R., 2022, ‘Play, reflection, and the quest for uncertainty’, in R.A. Beghetto & G.J. Jaeger (eds.), Uncertainty: A catalyst for creativity, learning and development, pp. 37–55, Springer, Switzerland.
Singh, A. & Manjaly, J.A., 2022, ‘Using curiosity to improve learning outcomes in schools’, SAGE Open 12(1), 21582440211069392. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211069392
Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C.M., Byrne, E.M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E.C. & Ramchandani, P.G., 2022, ‘Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Child Development 93(4), 1162–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730
Svanes, I.K. & Andersson-Bakken, E., 2023, ‘Teachers’ use of open questions: Investigating the various functions of open questions as a mediating tool in early literacy education’, Education Inquiry 14(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1985247
Syarif, S.H., Nisaa, I. & Fitriani, V., 2024, ‘Exploring the strategies and environmental factors that foster curiosity in early childhood education’, Educia Journal 2(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.71435/610400
Tan, J., Mao, J., Jiang, Y. & Gao, M., 2021, ‘The influence of academic emotions on learning effects: A systematic review’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(18), 9678. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189678
Tok, E., 2022, ‘Early childhood teachers’ roles in fostering creativity through free play’, International Journal of Early Years Education 30(4), 956–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1933919
Van der Merwe, D., Ramsaroop, S. & Fonseca, K., 2024, ‘Teacher educators’ coaching experiences in a mixed-reality simulation intervention’, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 14(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-03-2024-0035
Van Hoeck, N., Watson, P.D. & Barbey, A.K., 2015, ‘Cognitive neuroscience of human counterfactual reasoning’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9, 420–420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00420
Vygotsky, L.S. & Cole, M., 1978, Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, United state of America.
Walsh, G. & Fallon, J., 2021, ‘“What’s all the fuss about play”? Expanding student teachers’ beliefs and understandings of play as pedagogy in practice’, Early Years 41(4), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1581731
Weisberg, D.S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., Kittredge, A.K. & Klahr, D., 2016, ‘Guided play: Principles and practices’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 25(3), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416645512
Wickstrom, H. & Pyle, A., 2025, ‘Supporting early math learning along a continuum of guided play’, Early Childhood Education Journal 53(4), 1053–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01650-8
Wiliam, D., 2011, ‘What is assessment for learning?’, Studies in Educational Evaluation 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Willingham, D.T., 2021, Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom, 2nd edn., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Yu, Y., 2022, ‘Using guided play to facilitate young children’s exploratory learning’, in O.S. Tan, K.K. Poon, B.A. O’Brien & A. Rifkin-Graboi (eds.), Early childhood development and education in Singapore, pp. 189–215, Springer Singapore, Singapore.
Yu, Y., Shafto, P., Bonawitz, E., Yang, S.C.H., Golinkoff, R.M., Corriveau, K.H. et al., 2018, ‘The theoretical and methodological opportunities afforded by guided play with young children’, Frontiers in Psychology 9, 1152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01152
Zosh, J.M., Gaudreau, C., Golinkoff, R.M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2022, ‘The power of playful learning in the early childhood setting’, YC Young Children 77(2), 6–13.
Zosh, J.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E.J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Solis, S.L. & Whitebread, D., 2018, ‘Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum’, Frontiers in Psychology 9, 1124.
Zosh, J.M., Hopkins, E.J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K. et al., 2017, Learning through play: A review of the evidence, LEGO Foundation, Billund.
Zosh, J.M., Pyle, A., D’Sa, N., Omoeva, C., Robson, S., Ariapa, M. et al., 2024, ‘Applying the science of learning to teacher professional development and back again: Lessons from 3 country contexts’, Trends in Neuroscience and Education 36, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2024.100225
Footnotes
1. In South Africa, the Foundation Phase comprises Grades R to 3, aged 5–8 (DBE 2011).
2. In South Africa, CAPS stands for the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement, a comprehensive policy document developed by the DBE that outlines what should be taught and assessed in schools from Grades R to 12 (DBE 2012).
3. In South Africa, an ATP is a document provided by the DBE that outlines the minimum core content and skills to be taught within the CAPS curriculum for each subject and grade from Foundation Phase to FET Grades (DBE 2022).
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
