Valuable and Unessential: The Paradox of Preservice Teachers' Beliefs About the Role of Play in Learning

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 21 November 2014, At: 02:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Research in ChildhoodEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Valuable and Unessential: The Paradoxof Preservice Teachers' Beliefs About theRole of Play in LearningSara A. S. Sherwood a & Stuart Reifel ba Trinity University , San Antonio , Texasb The University of Texas at Austin , Austin , TexasPublished online: 18 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Sara A. S. Sherwood & Stuart Reifel (2013) Valuable and Unessential: The Paradoxof Preservice Teachers' Beliefs About the Role of Play in Learning, Journal of Research in ChildhoodEducation, 27:3, 267-282, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2013.795507

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2013.795507

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02568543.2013.795507

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2013.795507

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27: 267–282, 2013Copyright © Association for Childhood Education InternationalISSN: 0256-8543 print / 2150-2641 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02568543.2013.795507

Valuable and Unessential: The Paradox of PreserviceTeachers’ Beliefs About the Role of Play in Learning

Sara A. S. SherwoodTrinity University, San Antonio, Texas

Stuart ReifelThe University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Using a basic qualitative methodology, this study explores the following research question, what arepreservice teachers’ beliefs about the role of play in learning? This study focuses on the beliefs ofseven preservice teachers enrolled in an early childhood practicum at a small liberal arts universityin south central Texas. Findings indicated that the preservice teachers believe that play is valuableand not essential to children’s learning. Moreover, they seemed to privilege the learning in not-playactivities over the learning in play activities. These findings suggest that early childhood teachereducators need to assist preservice teachers in confronting contradictions within their beliefs aboutplay, educate preservice teachers about how play encourages academic learning, and teach preserviceteachers how to assess children’s learning during play.

Keywords: teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, play, preservice teachers

This study explores preservice teachers’ beliefs about the role of play in learning. Despite the cen-tral role of play in the inception of early childhood education (Frost, Wortham, & Reifel, 2012;Scales, Almy, Nicolopoulou, & Ervin-Tripp, 1991), the endorsement of play by early childhoodeducational organizations and teachers (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Isenberg & Quisenberry,2002; Lee, 2006; Moon & Reifel, 2008), and the research indicating its influence on children’sdevelopment and learning (Elias & Berk, 2002; Katch, 2001; Marsh, 1999; Pellegrini & Bohn,2005; Riojas-Cortez, 2001), play has gradually been losing its prominence in the early child-hood classroom (Elkind, 1990; Miller & Almon, 2009; Weber, 1984). Although broad supportfor play within the field of early childhood education exists, few studies have explored how thefield can affect U.S. teachers’ play practices at the preservice level. A large body of literature sug-gests that preservice teachers’ beliefs affect their learning during teacher education and in turnmay shape their practice (Genishi, Ryan, Ochsner, & Yarnall, 2001; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001;Richardson, 2003). However, when play is examined in teacher education, the focus has beenon how teacher educators organize course content to address play in their programs (Feldman,

Submitted April 17, 2011; accepted August 15, 2011.Address correspondence to Sara A. S. Sherwood, Department of Education, Trinity University, 1 Trinity Place, San

Antonio, TX 78212-7200. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

268 SHERWOOD AND REIFEL

1996; Klein, 1996; Lakin, 1996). We know little about preservice teachers’ beliefs about play(Klugman, 1996; Sherwood & Reifel, 2010).

Kindergarten in the United States initially held on tightly to its play-based roots (Fromberg,2006; Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Weber, 1984). Introduced first in 1856 by Margarethe Schurz inWisconsin and later in 1860 by Elizabeth Peabody in Boston, these early childhood classrooms,which were concerned with children’s moral, social, and emotional development, focused pri-marily on play and children’s self-activity (Weber, 1984). Over time, however, early childhoodclassrooms have incorporated less play into their daily schedules. Highlighting play’s decline inthe late 1980s, Hatch and Freeman (1988), using ethnographic interviews with 12 kindergartenteachers, 12 principals, and 12 administrators, found that kindergarten practices had become moreacademic, with an increased focus on direct instruction and paper-and-pencil tasks. Although notall of the teachers supported these practices, some felt compelled to adopt them to meet stateeducational standards. Nine years later, through interviews of 60 early childhood teachers andobservations of those teachers’ classrooms, Stipek and Byler (1997) uncovered a similar find-ing that teachers who were unable to enact child-centered, play-based practices felt pressurefrom outside sources (e.g., state standards, administrators, and parents) to create more didacticand academically oriented classrooms. More recently, Miller and Almon (2009) addressed the“crisis” of play’s diminished presence in kindergarten and the trend of children spending sig-nificantly more time engaged in teacher-directed academic instruction and less time engaged inchild-chosen play activities. This continuing trend reflects a broader trend in the United Statestoward standardization and assessment, and away from child-centered play approaches. Based onthe concern that the United States is falling behind other countries, policy statements, such asA Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1982) and America 2000(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1991), and federal legislation, such as NoChild Left Behind, have emphasized the role of math and reading skills at the expense of othercurricular content.

Even though children in early childhood classrooms have fewer opportunities to play, teach-ers continue to value the role of play in children’s learning and development (Bennett, Wood, &Rogers, 1997; Einarsdottir, 2002; Keating, Fabian, Jordan, Mavers, & Roberts, 2000; Lee, 2006;Moon & Reifel, 2008; Ranz-Smith, 2007; Riojas-Cortez & Flores, 2004). Lee’s (2006) studyof 18 preschool teachers’ perspectives on teacher-directed versus child-directed practices in theearly childhood classroom found that 78% of the teachers “endorsed classroom practices that pro-moted children’s play and encouraged active exploration and discoveries” (p. 436). Other studiessupport Lee’s findings. For instance, using a three-stage qualitative study, which included narra-tives, focus groups, individual interviews, and videotapes of practice, Bennett et al. (1997) studiedthe beliefs and practices of nine early childhood teachers from England. They found that theseteachers viewed play as “a vehicle for learning” and believed that play provided “relevant andmeaningful experiences . . . [that] . . . lead to learning” and fostered “positive attitudes towardslearning” (p. 33). Similarly, in an interview-based study of parents and teachers from 10 primaryschools in England conducted by Keating et al. (2000), researchers found that “a theme expressedacross the adult sample . . . [was] . . . that play can stimulate and extend learning” (p. 441).

Given the role that preservice teachers’ beliefs play in learning to teach (Anderson, 2001;Borko & Putnam, 1996; Calderhead, 1996; Genishi et al., 2001; Hollingsworth, 1989; Holt-Reynolds, 1992, 1993; Pajares, 1992; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; Richardson, 1996, 2003; Wideen,Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998), research on preservice teachers’ beliefs about play could help

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PSTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF PLAY IN LEARNING 269

teacher educators determine how to best influence those beliefs so that preservice teachers aremore likely to incorporate play into their future classrooms. Preservice teachers draw on theirincoming beliefs to make sense of what they learn during teacher education (Richardson, 2003).For instance, Anderson (2001), analyzing three case studies of whether and how preservice teach-ers learn to teach, found that preservice teachers’ entering beliefs shaped their perceptions ofwhat they learned. Similarly, Calderhead and Robson (1991) and Hollingsworth (1989) foundthat preservice teachers make sense of their teacher education coursework by filtering it throughtheir incoming beliefs. Thus, these beliefs are central to how preservice teachers learn duringteacher preparation (Richardson, 2003).

Even though preservice teachers’ beliefs appear to be instrumental to their learning, our under-standing of their beliefs about play is limited. We know from Klugman’s (1996) survey study of169 college freshmen interested in work with young children that respondents associated playwith learning and development, generally, and social development, in particular. According toKlugman, the theme of social development appeared throughout respondents’ survey answers.Specifically, they made connections between play and learning social skills and emphasizedplaying in groups over playing alone. Additionally, our research (Sherwood & Reifel, 2010) onpreservice teachers’ beliefs about what constitutes play found that preservice teachers had indi-vidualized definitions of play. At times, their definitions had overlapping features, such as beingchild determined, but no two participants defined play in the same way. Thus, when teacher edu-cators discuss play with their students, they need to acknowledge that part of the complexity ofusing play in the classroom is due to our divergent understandings of it.

In an effort to address the diminishing role of play in early childhood classrooms, this arti-cle, taken from a larger study on preservice teachers’ beliefs about play and the influences onthose beliefs (Sherwood, 2009), examines the following research question: What are preserviceteachers’ beliefs about the role of play in learning?

RESEARCH DESIGN

Guided by the interpretivist paradigm (Crotty, 1998; Erickson, 1986), this study used a basic qual-itative methodology (see Merriam, 1998) for data collection and analysis. According to Erickson(1986), “Interpretivist research is concerned with the specifics of meaning and action in social lifethat takes place in concrete scenes of face-to-face interaction, and that takes place in the widersociety surrounding the scene of action” (p. 156). This broader view of research aligns with thepurpose of basic qualitative methodology “to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process,or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved” (Merriam, 1998, p. 11).

Context and Participants

This study was conducted at Hawkins University (HU),1 a small liberal arts university in southcentral Texas in the United States. Research was conducted with the students enrolled in an earlychildhood through Grade 4 practicum course. During the first 3 weeks of the course, studentsmet on campus for 3 hours a week. Over the remaining 11 weeks of the semester, students spent11/2 hours per week in the university-based portion of the course and 11/2 hours per week in aprekindergarten or a kindergarten class at Stowe Academy, a public, inner-city charter school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


serving students from prekindergarten through Grade 8. Thirteen students were enrolled in thecourse, including three first-year students, seven sophomores, and three seniors. The studentsfrom this course were purposefully selected; as Merriam (1998) notes, “purposeful sampling isbased on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight andtherefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 61). Based on exploratoryfieldwork data, students in this course seemed open to writing about and discussing their beliefsabout play.

On the first day of class, 12 of the students described themselves as interested in pursuingeducation, and one student described herself as interested in pursuing school psychology. Of the12 students who planned to become teachers, seven (Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose, Joan, Mary, andKate) provided their informed consent to participate in interviews, field note observations, anddocument analysis portions of the study. This group included one first year, five sophomores, andone senior—all of whom were female and age 18 or older. Of the seven, one described herselfas Black, one described herself as being adopted from China by a Belgian father and Americanmother, and five described themselves as White. One of the five White women also describedherself as Jewish. In terms of certification, five were pursuing early childhood through Grade4 certification, one was pursuing Grades 4 through 8 certification, and one had not made a finaldecision about certification but thought she would pursue early childhood through Grade 4 orGrades 4 through 8 certification. Even though the participants were at different points in theirundergraduate education, all seven indicated that the practicum course was the first course theyhad enrolled in that specifically addressed play.

Data Collection

Based on the principles of basic qualitative research methodology (Merriam, 1998) and the sug-gested methods for data collection in research on beliefs (Kagan, 1990; Pajares, 1992; Wideenet al., 1998), the larger study that this article draws from used interviews, direct observation, andartifact analysis to explore the preservice teachers’ beliefs about play. Because the preserviceteachers primarily addressed their ideas about play’s role in learning and development in theirinterviews and an informal writing assignment, this article focuses on data collected during theinterviews, member-checks, and document analysis portions of the study. Interviews were a cen-tral focus of the analysis because they allow access to “how respondents think or feel aboutsomething” and provide valuable insights into “the affective and cognitive underpinnings of yourrespondents’ perceptions” (Glesne, 1999, p. 93). A 60-minute, audiotaped, one-on-one interviewwas conducted with each of the seven preservice teachers. During the interview, a semistructuredformat was used in which a tentative list of interview questions acted as a framework for thediscussions with each preservice teacher (Merriam, 1998). Interview questions focused on cat-egorizing activities as play, not-play, or middle (see Sherwood & Reifel, 2010, for an extensivedescription of the interview process and a list of categorized activities).2 Based on their catego-rizations, the preservice teachers were asked follow-up questions, such as (1) how they decided tocategorize the activities; (2) how children and teachers would think, feel, and act within each cat-egory; (3) what the benefits of each category and individual activities within each category were;and (4) what children learned from each category and individual activities within each category.Over the course of the interview, questions were added to and transformed based on participants’responses (Merriam, 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Because the benefits of document analysis include (1) “supporting, expanding, and challengingyour [the researcher’s] portrayals and perceptions” (Glesne, 1999), and (2) “acting as a reliablesource of data concerning a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and view of the world” (Merriam, 1998,p. 116), an informal writing assignment, Initial Ideas About Early Childhood Education (IIECE),was used to learn more about the preservice teachers’ beliefs about the role of play in learning.In the document, the preservice teachers described the purposes of play and whether and howthey would implement play in their future early childhood classroom.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred over the course of the study by interweaving description, analysis, andinterpretation and their related analytic approaches to examine the collected data (see Wolcott,1994). Each week, data was read and reread and reflections and insights recorded in analyticmemos (Glesne, 1999). These memos and the other collected data were used to develop descrip-tions, engage in analysis, and create interpretations. With description, the researcher stays “closeto the data as originally recorded” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 10). According to Wolcott (1994), in “thevery act of constructing data out of experience, the qualitative researcher singles out some thingsas worthy of note and relegates others to the background” (p. 13). Descriptive analysis includedwriting about the data as it unfolded, such as developing individual descriptive accounts of thepreservice teachers’ beliefs about play’s role in learning and development. These descriptiveaccounts helped flesh out the preservice teachers’ beliefs by highlighting central elements oftheir thinking.

Using analysis, “essential features and systematic description of interrelationships amongthem” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 12) were developed. Categories and themes were identified and orga-nized into tables and subcategories. For instance, analysis of the analytic memos, collected data,and descriptive accounts led to the development of two main categories: learning and develop-ment in play and learning and development in not-play. Each of these categories was broken downand refined into subcategories by deleting, conflating, and renaming as needed. The titles of thesubcategories were reviewed to ensure that they reflected the data that they represented and wereconceptually congruent, that is they represented “the same level of abstraction” (Merriam, 1998,p. 184). Based on the analysis of these categories and subcategories the overarching theme ofvaluable and unessential was developed.

With interpretation, “the researcher transcends factual data and cautious analyses and beginsto probe what is to be made of them” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 36). In this study, findings were inter-preted in the broader context of literature on play, beliefs, and preservice teachers’ beliefs and inconjunction with more knowledgeable others who provided insights, which led to additions, dele-tions, and changes to developing interpretations. For instance, verbal feedback suggested usingVygotsky’s (1986) work on thinking in conjunction with Nespor’s (1987) work on beliefs tobetter understand the preservice teachers’ beliefs about play.

Member-checks were used to increase this study’s quality and to demonstrate its rigor. Withmember-checks, the researcher attempts to “verify with the respondent groups the constructionsthat are developing as a result of data collected and analyzed” (Mertens, 1998, p. 182). Twomember-checks were conducted with participants. First, each participant received an electronictranscript of her interview and was invited to participate in a member-check session to verify

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the ideas expressed in her interview. All seven preservice teachers participated in these 30- to 45-minute audiotaped member-check discussions, which were later transcribed. In terms of verifyingtheir ideas, students were asked if they had a chance to read over their transcripts and if anythingin the transcript was in error or concerned them. Five of the seven students indicated that theyhad read their transcripts, and none of them raised concerns about the content or accuracy oftheir transcripts. In addition to this member-check, each preservice teacher received an electronicversion of preliminary findings and was asked for their feedback. Two of the seven participantsresponded, with Jane offering her congratulations on finishing a draft and Mary indicating thatshe enjoyed being a part of the research process and appreciated seeing her ideas tied to relevantliterature.

FINDINGS

The preservice teachers seemed to believe paradoxically that play is valuable and not essentialto learning and development. Specifically, they suggested that play encourages multiple formsof learning and development; however, they also seemed to believe that the type of learning playencourages is inferior to and less essential than the type of learning that occurs in not-play. Table 1and Table 2 provide an overview of the types of learning and development that the preserviceteachers associated with play and not-play, respectively. The first column lists the categories oflearning and development identified across the preservice teachers’ responses and the specifictypes of learning and development identified as falling within these categories. The second col-umn lists the number of preservice teachers whose response fell into a particular category andthe third column lists those preservice teachers’ names. For consistency, the preservice teachers’names are listed in the following order: Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose, Joan, Mary, and Kate. In the fourthcolumn, examples of the preservice teachers’ descriptions of the different types of learning anddevelopment that they associate with play and not-play are listed.

As illustrated by the data, the preservice teachers seemed to believe that play and not-playencourage learning across several developmental domains. With the exception of culture, theysuggested that both types of activities encourage similar kinds of development, such as cogni-tive, social/emotional, physical, and communicative. Even though the preservice teachers coulddescribe a range of learning opportunities offered by individual play and not-play activities, whenthey discussed play and not-play in more general terms they presented a narrower vision of howeach one affects learning. Additionally, they seemed to privilege the learning in not-play over thatin play. For instance, when asked to discuss the benefits of not-play, all seven preservice teachersdescribed learning as its sole benefit and emphasized its importance in young children’s lives.In contrast, the preservice teachers suggested that learning and development was one of severalbenefits of play. In terms of the former, the preservice teachers described the benefits of not-playby stating:

Lisa: You’re learning more concrete things like your numbers and your alphabet . . . thebenefits of not-play are that they [the children] get things done. (2007, Lisa’s interview)

Jane: The benefits for not-play are learning basic skills that you need to function in society atwhat we would call an average level. (2007, Jane’s interview)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1Learning and Development Encouraged by Play

Categories No.List of preservice

teachers Examples

Social/Emotional 7 Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,Joan, Mary, Kate

Learning to work withothers

7 Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,Joan, Mary, Kate

“They’re learning, they’re developing their socialskills. [They’re] learning how to work together withothers, figuring out what we’re going to do and whywe’re going to do it and joining in and learning toplay in groups and being including of others” (2007,Joan’s interview).

Learning aboutcompetition

3 Lisa, Mary, Kate With traditional board games, “. . . you have to learnthat even if you’re rolling the dice just likeeverybody else is rolling the dice, you may fallbehind, you may not win. I think that losing is kindof a big thing to learn” (2007, Kate’s interview).

Learning about oneself 3 Rose, Mary, Kate “They could learn a lot about themselves or maybeabout their artistic talent or, athletic ability” (2007,Rose’s interview).

Learning how to masteranxieties

2 Jane, Mary With playing hospital, children are “. . . mastering theiranxieties over medical encounters” (2007, Mary’smember-check).

Learning empathy 1 Jane Dress-up clothes “allow them to see how it is to besomeone else which would encourage empathy inlater life” (2007, Jane’s interview).

Cognitive 7 Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,Joan, Mary, Kate

Learning academicconcepts


“The water and sand table, I’m sure that it teaches basicscientific values. Probably, it’s learning what floatsand what doesn’t. Basic things like that” (2007,Lisa’s member-check).

Thinking creatively/

imaginatively7 Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,

Joan, Mary, KateArt “. . . allows for the half of the brain that deals with

creativity and artistic expression [to develop]” (2007,Mary’s member-check).

Developing generalcognitive skills


“Play serves to make learning a personal experience forthe children in order to further develop and cementideas in their minds” (2007, Rose’s IIECE).

Learning to follow rules 6 Lisa, Jane, Rose, Joan,Mary, Kate

During tag, they’re learning to “follow the rules of thegame” (2007, Lisa’s interview).

Memorizing 2 Joan, Kate With literacy games “the rhyming words, letters, I thinkthat they learn how to train their own memory.I think by following the teacher’s example ofmnemonic devices . . . being that kind of idea thatthey can learn for themselves what helps them toremember” (2007, Kate’s interview).

Physical 6 Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,Mary, Kate

Learning fine motorskills

5 Jane, Sue, Rose, Mary,Kate

With activities for holidays . . . “they learn how to cutthings and they learn hand eye coordination” (2007,Sue’s interview).

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1(Continued)


teachers Examples

Learning gross motorskills

3 Lisa, Mary, Kate During kickball, they learn “. . . physical coordination”(2007, Kate’s interview).

Communication 4 Lisa, Jane, Mary, KateSpeaking skills 4 Lisa, Jane, Mary, Kate During tag . . . “the person who’s supposed to tag they

have to diplomatically debate who that’s going to be.Usually the teacher is not going to say, ‘You have tobe it.’ So, they’re learning communication skills, anddebating skills” (2007, Mary’s interview).

Cultural 3 Sue, Rose, MaryLearning about gender

and family3 Sue, Rose, Mary “I picture with the kitchen really imitating what their

mom or dad does at home. So, kind of going frombeing the kid to being the adult for awhile. So, theycan kind of learn about family roles” (2007, Rose’sinterview).

Sue: The benefits of the not-play would be they’re, I don’t want to say actually learning some-thing, but they’re learning certain things that they need. . . . They acquire skills that youthink are important for them. (2007, Sue’s interview)

Rose: They need to learn. The teacher just has a lot to teach them and present to them. Theyknow it’s time to learn. So, it’s not all play. They know they need to really pay attention.It’s different and they know it’s different. They know it’s something to really learn.(2007, Rose’s interview)

Joan: The benefits [of not-play] are that you’re learning. Academic learning has to happen.It may not be play, but it’s essential. These kids have to learn. . . . I think that you canuse play to involve kids in the learning, but academic learning has to happen. You haveto reach a goal; you have to go to the next one. It’s essential to the growing of a child.(2007, Joan’s interview)

Mary: Children develop in the ways that they need so that they can grow, develop their minds.I mean they have to be educated. They have to learn to become a being. So, the benefitsof not-play are you’re teaching the kids. (2007, Mary’s interview)

Kate: [They’re learning] the basic curriculum. Everything that students are expected to knowthat they’re going to be building on for the rest of their education. I think kindergartenand preschool are absolutely an essential time for reading, spelling, numbers, days of theweek, the most basic things that we will never review again. (2007, Kate’s interview)

Although the preservice teachers described play as encouraging multiple forms of learningand development, the above comments suggest that learning has a qualified meaning. For thepreservice teachers, the primary meaning of the term learning seems to be acquiring academicknowledge during not-play. Furthermore, their description of this type of learning as “essen-tial” and as necessary to “function in society” suggests that they believe it is integral to youngchildren’s lives.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 2Learning and Development Encouraged by Not Play


teachers Examples

Cognitive 7 Lisa, Jane, Sue, Rose,Joan, Mary, Kate

Learning academicconcepts


“They’d be learning a lot of the base stuff. So, learningtheir letters, their sight words, their counting, differentbase things. So, it seems like there would be a lot ofrepetition. But, just really getting those things down”(2007, Rose’s interview).

Learning through directinstruction

3 Lisa, Sue, Mary In not-play “. . . the teacher, has to start it [the learning,and] . . . the benefits are they are going to continuouslylearn something new” (2007, Mary’s interview).

Thinking creatively/

imaginatively3 Joan, Sue, Mary “In listening to a book on tape it’s just like

reading—they’re thinking, they’re using theirimaginations because they have to create the stories intheir mind because there aren’t pictures in front ofthem” (2007, Mary, member-check).

Memorizing 3 Jane, Joan, Kate With writing the ABC’s, the children are “memorizingthe alphabet” (2007, Jane’s member-check).

Social/Emotional 6 Lisa, Sue, Rose, Joan,Kate, Mary

Learning life/schoolskills

5 Lisa, Sue, Rose, Joan,Mary

With “zipping up your jacket, [they’re] learning how tokeep warm” (2007, Sue’s member-check).

Learning to work withothers

3 Lisa, Rose, Kate “Lining up teaches them basically how to get along withother people, you can’t always be first” (2007, Lisa’smember-check).

Learning aboutcompetition

1 Kate “They’re learning a sense of competition . . . becausemost of the students do really enjoy the teacher’sattention and compliments. And they do sort of enjoycompeting with each other for the right answer” (2007,Kate’s interview).

Physical 3 Lisa, Jane, SueLearning fine motor

skills3 Lisa, Jane, Sue With writing the ABC’s, you’re “learning how to control

your fingers” (2007, Sue’s member-check).

Communication 4 Joan, JaneLearning listening skills 2 Joan, Jane With listening to a story, “. . . they’re learning to pay

attention. Like, what is the correct decorum whensomebody is reading to you? And, you’re learning tofollow a story, to listen carefully enough that you canunderstand what’s going on from the person who’sreading . . . following the sequence of events, how didthis happen? Why?” (2007, Joan’s interview).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


In contrast to not-play, the preservice teachers neither described the learning during play asessential nor suggested that academic learning was the only function of play. Instead, all of themsuggested that in addition to encouraging learning and development, play serves other purposes,such as offering children a break from not-play (n = 4), allowing children to work off excessenergy (n = 3), and/or making school fun (n = 3). Demonstrating the first stance, Joan statedthat “during school it’s [play’s] a break from structured academics. It’s time to let loose. I thinkthe biggest thing is it’s a break, a load off your shoulders” (2007, Joan’s interview). In otherwords, play offers a break from the tedium of not-play and in so doing prepares children toreturn to their not-play activities refreshed and revitalized. Reflective of the second stance, Rosesuggested that play was “an outlet for energy” (2007, Rose’s IIECE) and a time for children to“let out their energy” (2007, Rose’s interview). In this instance, play allows children to releasetheir excess energy so that they can refocus on the important learning that occurs during not-play.Finally, with the third stance, Sue suggested that play “lets the kids look forward to something,to be excited to go to school, it’s fun” (2007, Sue’s interview). From this perspective, play seemsto make the not-play part of school bearable. Although the preservice teachers believe that playencourages multiple forms of learning and development, these other purposes suggest that duringplay children do not engage in the form of learning that the preservice teachers believe is essential.Rather, play makes not-play learning more palatable and allows children to relax or rejuvenate sothat they can learn important concepts during not-play.

DISCUSSION

How can play be both valuable and unessential to learning? Beliefs research suggests that unlikeknowledge systems, which “have relatively well-defined domains of application” (Nespor, 1987,p. 321), belief systems can be “extended in radical and unpredictable ways” (Nespor, 1987,p. 321). Thus, because belief systems are not logically structured, a person may hold incom-patible beliefs without creating dissonance or tension for the individual holding them (Nespor,1987; Pajares, 1992).

According to Vygotsky (1986), internal inconsistencies are a “peculiar phenomenon” of com-plex thinking (p. 126). Specifically, he suggests that for individuals thinking in complexities, “oneword may in different situations have different or even opposite meanings as long as there is someassociative link between them” (p. 126). Because the main connection among their espousedbeliefs was the term play itself, as the preservice teachers described different aspects of playand not-play, some of the beliefs that they surfaced conflicted with one another. For instance,when the preservice teachers described the benefits of individual play and not-play activities,they suggested a variety of ways in which both types of activities encourage multiple forms oflearning and development. However, as they discussed play in more general terms, they seemedto view play as a nice activity for children to engage in but not one that promotes the importanttype of learning that occurs in not-play. As Kate noted, in not-play children learn material thatthey will “be building on for the rest of their education.” Thus, though individual play activitiesmay encourage cognitive growth and development, they do not encourage the “essential” typesof cognitive development that occur in not-play. Although the notion that play both encouragesand does not encourage cognitive growth and development may not be logically consistent, forthe preservice teachers these ideas are all connected to the term play and their understanding of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


it. It seems fair to wonder how this inconsistent, binary thinking about a complex phenomenonlike play may be represented in professional discourse and our broader society.

In addition to demonstrating the unbounded quality of beliefs, evidence that all of thepreservice teachers held similar views about the role of play in learning and development suggeststhat even though they have individualized beliefs about play (Sherwood & Reifel, 2010), theirbeliefs share some commonalities. The simultaneously unique and overlapping quality of theirbeliefs align with practicing teachers whose understanding of play has been described as “idiosyn-cratic” and as sharing commonalities across “many dimensions” (Reifel, 2007, p. 1). A case inpoint, Bennett et al. (1997) found that the nine teachers in their study used multiple overlappingqualities to describe play, such as enjoyable, child directed, and independent. Thus, similar topracticing teachers, preservice teachers’ beliefs about play, while unique, may share commonthemes.

The preservice teachers’ shared belief that play is valuable and not essential to learningmatches the current position of play in early childhood education. The notion that play has a valu-able role in learning and development is deeply embedded in play discourse (Ailwood, 2003).For instance, early childhood educational organizations, teachers, and educational researchershave described the need for play in young children’s lives, education, and learning (Bennettet al., 1997; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002; Moon & Reifel, 2008).Advocates of play vocally defend its inclusion in early childhood education and express theirconcern over perceived limitations of play in the classroom. Statements like “Children’s play hascome under renewed attack” (Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2006, p. 15) and “Children’s play—theirinborn disposition for curiosity, imagination, and fantasy—is being silenced” (Elkind, 2007, p.ix) demonstrate their uneasiness with these trends.

The preservice teachers’ view that learning promoted by play is not essential also reflects theacademic focus of today’s less play-oriented classrooms. For instance, Scott-Little, Kagan, andFrelow’s (2006) “content analysis of 46 learning standards documents developed by state levelorganizations” (p. 153) indicated that “the cognition and general knowledge domain has beenemphasized more than the other domains” (p. 166). In line with their findings, in Texas (wherethis study took place), the kindergarten curriculum standards emphasize academic developmentand learning in the cognitive domain. Three fourths of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skillsfor Kindergarten (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2010) is dedicated to academic content areas,such as language arts, math, science, and social studies. These standards give a cursory nodto play in content areas outside of academic subject matter, such as theater arts, music, health,and physical education; but the standards do not describe how play can encourage learning inareas such as language arts, math, science, and social studies. Because today’s early childhoodclassrooms require that a student meet specific learning outcomes, and given that the preserviceteachers do not believe play promotes this type of learning, it is not surprising that they value theidea of play while also viewing it as unessential.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Against this backdrop, the challenge for teacher educators will be fleshing out which aspectsof the preservice teachers’ beliefs about play reflect the underlying qualities of play and whichaspects reflect the underlying qualities of their beliefs, because play as a construct and belief as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


a form of cognition are inherently contradictory. In other words, the preservice teachers’ beliefthat play is both valuable and unessential may reflect not only the underlying qualities of play,but also the underlying qualities of the preservice teachers’ beliefs. Consequently, the preserviceteachers make sense of the contradictory ideas within play through a form of cognition thatallows these contradictions to go unquestioned. Therefore, teacher educators need to address notonly the content of preservice teachers’ beliefs about play, but also the quality of their thinkingabout it.

Possible strategies for addressing this challenge include helping preservice teachers confrontthe contradictions within their beliefs about play, educating preservice teachers about the explicitways play encourages learning academic content, and teaching them how to assess children’slearning during play. First, because preservice teachers may be unaware of the contradictionswithin their thinking about play, teacher educators should create time for preservice teachers tosurface their beliefs about play and then help them to identify the inconsistencies within theirbeliefs. Confronting their beliefs in this fashion may influence the extent to which their beliefsevolve (Brindley & Laframboise, 2002; Gill, Ashton, & Algina, 2004; Groulx, 2001; Joram &Gabriele, 1998; Linek et al., 1999; McDiarmid, 1990). By highlighting the contradictory qual-ity of the preservice teachers’ thinking, teacher educators may open the door to expanding andrevising their preservice teachers’ beliefs that play is not essential to children’s learning anddevelopment.

Next, teacher educators can be explicit with their students about how play encourages aca-demic learning and development. The preservice teachers in this study seemed to have a generalsense that individual play activities can promote academic learning. For instance, in describingthe learning that takes place at the water and sand table, Lisa stated, “I’m sure that it teachesbasic scientific values. Probably, it’s learning what floats and what doesn’t. Basic things likethat” (2007, Lisa’s member-check). Reading, discussing, and observing early childhood curric-ula that view academic learning as a natural part of play may help preservice teachers see howdevelopmentally appropriate practices like play can help children learn in age-appropriate ways.For instance, a teacher educator could build on Lisa’s incoming knowledge by helping Lisa tobroaden and refine her understanding of the specific skills that children learn at the water andsand table. Chalufour and Worth (2005) note that through water play a child “becomes awarethat when placed in water, some things remain on the surface (float), and others go under thesurface to either sink to the bottom or stay suspended” (p. 121). Through this process, childrenbecome “aware that floating and sinking objects have certain characteristics” (p. 121), conceptsthat lay the foundation for children’s later understanding of density. Additionally, observing thephysical properties of matter, which children do when they play at the water and sand table,is one of the required science skills listed in the Kindergarten Texas Essential Knowledge andSkills (TEA, 2010). By making explicit connections among play activities, subject matter learn-ing, and state standards, preservice teachers may better understand how play promotes learningand development in these areas.

Once preservice teachers know what children can learn during play, they need to be taughthow to assess children’s learning during play. Because play tends to be process oriented (Christie& Roskos, 2006; Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005; Klugman & Fasoli, 1995), children often donot end their play with a final product that can be easily evaluated and scored. If districts mandatea certain number of grades per week for each student, preservice teachers may feel they cannotuse play in their classrooms because it does not provide a final product that they can evaluate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Yet play provides an optimal environment for assessing children’s learning, because duringplay children transfer what they know and understand into their play activities. As Wiggins andMcTighe (2005) note,

Understanding is about transfer. . . . To be truly able requires the ability to transfer what we havelearned to new and sometimes confusing settings. The ability to transfer our knowledge and skilleffectively involves the capacity to take what we know and use it creatively, flexibly, fluently, indifferent settings or problem, on our own. (p. 40)

Two developmentally appropriate assessments for young children include observing and record-ing students’ actions during play (McAfee, Leong, & Bodrova, 2004). Paying close attentionto what children do during play and keeping narratives of their work provide clear documen-tation of their learning. For instance, with the water and sand table, preservice teachers can betaught how to take anecdotal records while observing children’s play and what to look for toidentify whether children are developing an understanding of certain academic concepts, suchas sinking and floating. Chalufour and Worth (2005) suggest that a child becoming aware ofthese scientific concepts may begin “to notice that materials that sink or float usually remainsinking or floating even if left in water” and have an “awareness that objects that sink or floatwill usually do the same thing every time they are placed in water” (p. 121). By analyzing theiranecdotal records for these particular skills, preservice teachers can evaluate whether childrenare learning particular academic content. Teaching preservice teachers how to assess children’slearning during play may encourage them to see play as a viable option for students in theirfuture classrooms. This effort would surely involve university instructors and supervisors, as wellas teachers and administrators in field settings where students would encounter appropriate playsettings.

Further research in this area might examine whether and how helping preservice teachersconfront the contradictions within their beliefs about play, educating them about the explicit waysplay encourages learning academic content, and teaching them how to assess children’s learningduring play assists them in expanding their understanding of the role of play in learning anddevelopment. Additionally, given the contradictory quality of play as a construct and belief as aform of cognition, future research also might examine which aspects of the preservice teachers’beliefs about play are related to the underlying qualities of play and which are related to theunderlying qualities of their beliefs. Effectively addressing play in teacher education throughresearch and teaching may foster a better appreciation of the role of play in learning and, in turn,may help preservice teachers see the importance and relevance of play in today’s early childhoodclassrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The research for this study comes from the first author’s, Sara Sherwood’s, doctoral dissertation,which she completed at The University of Texas at Austin. Sara Sherwood currently serves asan adjunct faculty member in the Department of Education at Trinity University in San Antonio,Texas. The second author, Stuart Reifel, served as Sara Sherwood’s dissertation supervisor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


NOTES

1. Names of people and places have been changed.2. Although the terms play, not-play, and middle are somewhat awkward, they reflect the language used by the

researchers and preservice teachers during the research process.

REFERENCES

Ailwood, J. (2003). Governing early childhood education through play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4,286–299.

Anderson, L. (2001). Nine prospective teachers and their experiences in teacher education: The role of entering concep-tions of teaching and learning. In B. Torff & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind:Student and teacher learning (pp. 187–215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bennett, N., Wood, E., & Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching through play: Teachers’ thinking and classroom practice.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of EducationalPsychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Brindley, R., & Laframboise, K. L. (2002). The need to do more: Promoting multiple perspectives in preservice teachereducation through children’s literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 405–420.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teacher: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educationpsychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice.Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8.

Chalufour, I., & Worth, K. (2005). Exploring water with young children. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.Christie, J. F., & Roskos, K. A. (2006). Standards, science, and the role of play in early literacy education. In D. S. Singer,

R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive andsocial-emotional growth (pp. 57–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs, serv-ing children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London,England: Sage.

Einarsdottir, J. (2002, April). Manifestation of cultural beliefs in the daily practice of Icelandic Preschools. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramatic play? EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216–238.

Elkind, D. (1990). Academic pressures—Too much, too soon: The demise of play. In E. Klugman & S. Smilansky (Eds.),Children’s play and learning: Perspectives and policy implications (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier children.Cambridge, MA: De Capo Lifelong Books.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook of research onteaching (pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Feldman, R. (1996). Reflections on play: Learning from student teacher placements. In A. L. Phillips (Ed.), Topics inearly childhood education: Vol. 2. Playing for keeps: Supporting young children’s play (pp. 45–56). St. Paul, MN:Redleaf Press.

Fromberg, D. P. (2006). Kindergarten education and early childhood teacher education in the United States: Status at thestart of the 21st century. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27, 65–85.

Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, S. (2012). Play and child development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonEducation.

Genishi, C., Ryan, S., Ochsner, M., & Yarnall, M. M. (2001). Teaching in early childhood education: Understandingpractices through research and theory. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp.1175–1210). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching andlearning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.Goffin, S. G., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood education: Appraising the relationship

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall/Merrill.Groulx, J. G. (2001). Changing preservice teacher perceptions of minority schools. Urban Education, 36(1), 60–92.Hatch, J. A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988). Kindergarten philosophies and practices: Perspectives of teachers, principals and

supervisors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 151–166.Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal,

26(2), 160–189.Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American

Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349.Holt-Reynolds, D. (1993). When “I loved your course!” is bad news: The case of Jeneane (Craft paper 93-1). East

Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.Isenberg, J. P., & Quisenberry, N. (2002). Play: Essential for all children, a position paper of the Association for

Childhood International. Retrieved from www.acei.org/playpaper.htmJohnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development and early education. Boston, MA: Pearson.Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. J. (1998). Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs: transforming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 14, 175–191.Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of

Educational Research, 60, 419–469.Katch, J. (2001). Under deadman’s skin. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.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, 437–454.Klein, A. (1996). Constructing knowledge about play: Case method and teacher education. In A. L. Phillips (Ed.), Topics

in early childhood education: Vol. 2. Playing for keeps: Supporting young children’s play (pp. 57–66). St. Paul, MN:Redleaf Press.

Klugman, E. (1996). The value of play as perceived by Wheelock College freshmen. In A. L. Phillips (Ed), Topics inearly childhood education: Vol. 2. Playing for keeps: Supporting young children’s play (pp. 13–30). St. Paul, MN:Redleaf Press.

Klugman, E., & Fasoli, L. (1995). Taking the high road toward a definition of play. In E. Klugman (Ed.), Play, policy andpractice (pp. 13–32). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Lakin, M. B. (1996). The meaning of play: Perspectives from Pacific Oaks College. In A. L. Phillips (Ed.), Topics in earlychildhood education: Vol. 2. Playing for keeps: Supporting young children’s play (pp. 33–43). St. Paul, MN: RedleafPress.

Lee, S. L. (2006). Preschool teachers’ shared beliefs about appropriate pedagogy for 4-year-olds. Early ChildhoodEducation Journal, 33, 433–441.

Linek, W. M., Nelson, O. G., Sampson, M. B., Zeek, C. K., Mohr, K. A. J., & Hughes, L. (1999). Developing beliefsabout literacy instruction: A cross-case analysis of preservice teachers in traditional and field based settings. ReadingResearch and Instruction, 38, 371–386.

Marsh, J. (1999). Batman and Batwoman go to school: Popular culture in the literacy curriculum. International Journalof Early Years Education, 7(2), 117–131.

McAfee, O., Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2004). Basics of assessment: A primer for early childhood educators.Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers’ beliefs during early field experience: A quixotic undertak-ing? Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 12–20.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from casestudy research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative andqualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliancefor Childhood.

Moon, K., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and literacy learning in a diverse language pre-kindergarten classroom. ContemporaryIssues in Early Childhood, 9(1), 49–65.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1982). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–328.Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational

Research, 62, 307–332.Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers’ intuitive conceptions of learning, motivation and instruc-

tion: The role of motivational and epistemological beliefs. In B. Torff & R. Stenberg (Eds.), Understanding andteaching in the intuitive mind: Student and teacher learning (pp. 117–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment.Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19.

Ranz-Smith, D. J. (2007). Teacher perception of play: In leaving no child behind are teachers leaving childhood behind?Early Education and Development, 18(2), 271–303. doi:10.1080/10409280701280425

Reifel, S. R. (2007, November). Teachers and play: Bridging their thought and practice. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Chicago, IL.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan Library ReferenceUSA.

Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Teachers beliefs and classroomperformance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 43–64). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Riojas-Cortez, M. (2001). Preschoolers’ funds of knowledge displayed through sociodramatic play episodes in a bilingualclassroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 35–40.

Riojas-Cortez, M., & Flores, B. B. (2004). Los Padres y los maestros: Perspective of play among bilingual stakeholdersin public schools. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Advances in early education and day care: Vol. 13. Social contexts of earlyeducation and reconceptualizing play (pp. 271–292). Elsevier.

Scales, B., Almy, M., Nicolopoulou, A., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1991). Defending play in the lives of children. In B. Scales, M.Almy, A. Nicolopoulou, & S. Ervin-Tripp (Eds.), Play in the social context of development and early care education(pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2006). Conceptualization of readiness and the content of early learningstandards: The intersection of policy and research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 153–173.

Sherwood, S. A. S. (2009). Play: A study of preservice teachers’ beliefs about a complex element of early childhoodeducation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 3369196)

Sherwood, S. A. S., & Reifel, S. (2010). The multiple meanings of play: Exploring preservice teachers’ beliefs about acentral element of early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 322–343.

Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 12, 305–325.

Texas Education Agency. (2010). Texas essential knowledge and skills for kindergarten. Retrieved from www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=6148&menu_id=720&menu_id2=785

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Weber, E. (1984). Ideas influencing early childhood education: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of research on learning to teach: Making the case

for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Zigler, E. F., & Bishop-Josef, S. J. (2006). The cognitive child versus the whole child: Lessons from 40 years of Head

start. In D. S. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=learning: How play motivates and enhanceschildren’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 15–35). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

2:15

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Valuable and Unessential: The Paradox of Preservice Teachers' Beliefs About the Role of Play in Learning