The Language of Learning: Looking at the word ‘play’ through a critical lens by Jan Dubiel

Jan Dubiel is an Independent Consultant and Adviser specialising in Early Childhood Education. Play is the touchstone of Early Childhood Education but the word itself presents a challenge in how our practice is perceived by others. In this thought provoking blog, Jan challenges us to look at the word 'play' through a critical lens and consider if there is any other way we could describe the way children learn that might help those outside the profession understand the complex nature of early childhood education. 

See the full article below.

Its just a word…isn’t it?

‘Play’ is the touchstone of Early Childhood Education (ECE).  Frobel’s concept of a ‘Kindergarten’ distinguished direct instructional ‘teaching’ from the child’s activity; autonomous creative and cognitive. An education, that enables a child to make sense of and use their knowledge and skills, relies on what is described as ‘play’ – as an integral dimension. Bruce (1987 p17) describes this succinctly; ‘Frobel makes the distinction between play and work. Play is what children are involved in when they initiate the task and work is what when they fulfil a task required by an adult’

In the EYFS framework (DfE 2024) - the word appears 20 times. “Play is essential for children’s development... Children learn by leading their own play, and by taking part in play and learning that is guided by adults.”

The Ofsted Document (2024,) while ‘examining how schools secure… foundational knowledge and skills’ mentions the word ‘play’ 21 times asserting that ‘Well-planned play is important.’

The concept of a ‘play - based pedagogy’ is an uncontested element of ECE. While effecting an appropriate ‘balance’ between adult and child directed episodes of activity is a point of debate, the child’s autonomy is universally accepted. To borrow from Frobel, while children will sometimes ‘work’ they will also ‘play’

So, does the word matter?

Describing aspects of practice has implications for reflecting values, beliefs and philosophies. However, the word ‘play’ has, in my view, become problematic – especially within an educational context - and it I think it needs scrutiny through a more critical lens.

The word itself is either undefined, undefinable or has such a broad definition as to render it meaningless. Some educators state that a child wiggling their fingers in time to music is ‘play’ because it is self initiated. Other, hardcore ‘play advocates’ contend that an adult’s presence, mean a child’s activity cannot be defined as ‘play’. Perhaps both definitions are right. But, as the touchstone of a philosophy, shouldn’t there be more of consensus? Actual definitions of play are rare.  While there is an inundation of what children do, ‘play’, remains at best contested.

Fisher (2016) explores the complexity of teaching and learning as a facilitated, complex dynamic alternating between adult and child, rich with opportunities for provocation, prompts and interactions. These evoke responses in the child to develop their learning. Vygotsky’s (1978) ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ is dependent on this process that cannot –should not - be restricted by an undefined word.

 There is a dangerous conflation between ‘play - based pedagogy’ and a ‘pure’ view of ‘play’. The latter is enshrined in the UN rights of the Child (1989) as Article 31. Often this is erroneously quoted to justify the former. But Article 31 refers to a child’s right to ‘leisure’ - not pedagogy.  More significant is Article 28 which protects a child’s right to an education.

A Dictionary definition of ‘play’ OUP (2025) is to ‘engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose’ and provides synonyms such as relax, and mess around.  Are we not devaluing the learning that takes place by reducing it to something ‘frivolous’? To represent the importance of ECE we need a different, nuanced lexicon of terminology that describes this.  To achieve recognition, is the trade-in of a single word something that we could sacrifice?

How we describe young children’s learning is a complex. It inevitably provokes strong feelings, challenges beliefs and reveals deep emotional attachments to terminology. Having the courage to reflect on this, how we represent it to ourselves and others, is perhaps, our most pressing and potentially empowering challenge.

References:

·        Bruce, T (1987) p 17 ‘Early Childhood Education’, Hodder and Stoughton London

·        DfE (2024) Early Years Foundation Stage, DfE Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/670fa42a30536cb92748328f/EYFS_statutory_framework_for_group_and_school_-_based_providers.pdf

·        Fisher, J (2016) Interacting or Interfering McGraw Hill

·        Ofsted. (2024) Strong Foundations in the first years of school. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strong-foundations-in-the-first-years-of school/strong-foundations-in-the-first-years-of-school

·        Oxford University Press  (2025) English Dictionary, OUP

·        United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved 2nd May 2008 from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

·        Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher Psychological processes Cambridge