Let’s make sure we are not playing our way to collective ignorance!

Posted on August 2, 2011 by Carmel Crevola

 

” play-based learning” “enquiry learning” ” project learning” investigative learning”

Why do I feel a sense of despair in the pit of my stomach when I hear these labels being tossed around like the lettuce in my mixed salad? Is it the implied simplicity that accompanies such statements as ‘Just follow the interest of the learner’, or is it the assumption that all our students come to the table with a strong language foundation that equips them to engage in the openness and by some form of osmosis develop the necessary skills and competencies to engage with the multitude of learning opportunities offered?

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in play as an essential part of the learning process. I believe in and in fact am a strong advocate of ‘personalization’ (Breakthrough, Fullan, Hill &Crevola, 2006). My concern stems from the assumption that these things are ‘new’ discoveries, and that they have arisen out of recent research that is associated with the solid body of evidence which does in fact support precision as a means to personalization.

As a way of an example I will take the approach to play-based learning known as the Reggio Emilia approach. This is currently being considered by some educators as an approach to learning that is fitting for the 21st century classroom.  Malaguzzi in Reggio Emilia, Italy founded the Reggio Emilia Philosophy in 1945.   This program was developed as a way to get children who had been through the depression years and the war, thinking and acting independently and being allowed to explore and have a sense of freedom.  It begs the question as to why would we be looking to understandings from 1945, to inform our understandings of learning in 2011?  The intense interest in such programs stems from the integration of early childhood practices with those of formal schooling.

Instead of looking to balancing our Kindergarten (JK,SK)/Reception/Preparatory classes by assimilating  play and exploration into the formal aspects of reading ,writing and mathematics. There is a move, I believe, to turn back the clock. Over the past 15 years my research and work has shown time and time again-across three continents and in four different countries, that the first year of schooling is the most critical foundational learning period. It is where teachers in normal classroom settings actually can achieve accelerative learning for their students. Let’s not forget what we have learned and know. Let’s not throw out that baby with this bathwater. What happened to our understandings of judging approaches and programs on the evidence of the impact on learning for all our students?

For many early childhood educators, a play-based curriculum is the only learning process that they consider. For others the jury is still out. For me, I reflect upon fifteen years of evidence that show there can be up to forty percent of students entering Kindergarten/Reception who are unable to understand all but the easiest of instructions. What happens to those students when we ‘follow their interests’ but fail to explicitly instruct and have precision to inform the small group and whole class intentional instruction? How can they connect with the prolonged exposure to the dialogue and extended thinking when they cannot even follow a simple instruction or a story read to them in their classroom?

I began my research in 1995 in this exact same place, now I find I am having the exact same conversations that I had sixteen years ago.  Are we really going back there again?  Have we not learned some things along the way to re-enter this discussion much further along the track with our understandings of the importance of language to learning and thinking?  Maybe nervous is not what I am, maybe I am frustrated that we allow this incessant swinging of the educational pendulum.

What are your thoughts? I welcome the debate and sharing of ideas.

Last updated by at .

This entry was posted in Carmel Crevola, Play Based Learning and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Maureen Devlin

    Thanks for starting a blog. With your experience, you will have a lot to share. I don’t believe there’s one approach that’s the best. I believe that the early childhood day needs to include a variety of teaching methods, strategies and goals with time for play, but also time for whole class and small group instruction as you suggest. It’s integral that educators keep up to date on the research and choose evidence-based practices most of the time, leaving some time for exploration and intuition too. Thanks for adding to the conversation.

  • Anonymous

    Carmel, I feel your frustration and I would love to hear more from others on this as well.

    As an early childhood educator, I too, embrace the value of play however as teachers I believe it is always our role to be the facilitator of children’s learning and we need to be skilled in using play experiences towards problem solving experiences.

    The beauty of ‘following their interest’ is that we can keep the child or small group engaged in the learning however I believe it is still our role to maximise the learning by probing, questioning and experimenting.

    What frustrates me most about teaching however is how crowded our curriculum is and how impossible it seems to get through all that is timetabled into the school day. Our children have such limited time in the day to really explore, analyse and create. Sometimes this completely overwhelmes me.

    Clare

    • Carmel Crevola

      Clare, I understand your frustration and yes the curriculum has become a nightmare in most countries. But I always tell teachers to be clear about the learning and teaching focus and then to lookin into the aspects of the curriculum that are in fact integrated across the domains. But my greatest fear is this automatic assumption and the message that is being given to teachers, that if you let the children play and explore and inquire then it will all happen as long as you observe and record and track. Well, at its best this may be true for 90% of the children and teachers, but there is a lot left to assuming teachers have the skills intuitively to know when that is not enough! My 15 years of research would tell me different.  So try not to let the weight of the curriculum ‘bits’ weigh you down, look at the foundational aspects of learning (literacy and numeracy) look at the key aspects of building meaning and understanding, the ability to question a and clarify and to  how to have and justify and opinion and build theses across your day.

  • Carmel Crevola

    Thanks Maureen. I agree with balance. My research work began in 1995 when in Victoria, Australia we found ourselves in a position where our literacy outcomes were leaving a huge gap between the highest and the struggling. I had been in the classroom for 20 plus years at that stage and so I knew what it was to have a play-based program, to have a phonics flash card based program but what I did not have clear in my head was what a balanced approach to learning and teaching looked like in the early years of a schooling. So I went searching, in NZ, UK, USA and I spent weeks and months in classrooms around these countries, talking with teachers and students and teaching and learning in very different classrooms. I experienced prescription at its height (SFA Classrooms) I experienced play based classrooms where the students explored and investigated and indeed were happy in this process, but which left many students behind in their foundational skills to cope with Year 1 and beyond. But it was not until I had completed this tour of duty that I came to a place of true balance. This was the beginning of my research into this area. For the past 16 years I have dedicated my professional life into exploring and working alongside of classroom teachers in JK (3.5 year old) – Year 3 (8 year olds) in particular. We have explored, researched, refined and challenged our understandings and thinking around the most effective ways to organize the learning day for young learners so that ALL students can achieve high standards given the right conditions and assistance. Herein lies the challenge. All students. Play based learning is essential, but we must personalized the learning for ALL and we must insert precision (not prescription) into every learning decision and choice, if All students are indeed to succeed. i am convinced and passionate about this for sure.

  • Cristina Just Cristina

    I enjoyed reading this blog post and, despite my being a supporter of the constructivist approach, I do find that the overemphasis on play might not be the best or at least not the single  approach to teaching. 
    I even wrote a blog on similar lines  as I got irritated by the continuous use of “fun” in education rhetoric. http://ateacherswonderings.posterous.com/why-i-dont-like-only-fun 
    @sureallyno on Twitter

    • http://www.carmelcrevola.com Carmel Crevola

      Cristina, I too am constructivist in nature, but that is not opposing personalization and precision. The problem right now is that people in education are forgetting that this is not new, we have had a play process in the 36 years that I have been teaching anyway. The difference now is that for the past 15 years we have spent billions of dollars right across the world, looking at the place of precision in personalizing the learning for all students. We did not have this data and information when I started teaching in a play based process in the early 70′s. We have to balance, and unfortunately in education people love to swing back and forth and not learn from the past and build on what works and implement and innovate and extend to make a new future.
      I just want to get teachers talking, thinking, reflecting and being able to articulate what they do an why they do it for every child in their class. “Why am I doing this right now with this student?”  ”Why is this the most effective and efficient way for this student to learn right now?”
      Thanks for your reflective nature.
      CC

  • Deanfdelk

    Carmel, thank you for taking the time to post your comments.

    I feel I have an affinity with you, having also gained many foundational theories from my time in Reading Recovery like yourself.   Having listened to you in the past, I am glad that we both continue to speak from a shared belief that all children are intelligent and capable of greatness given the appropriate levels of support and encouragement. 

    My only fear with your recent comments is the perceived attempt to simplify the complexity  in ‘Reggio Philosophy’ and our province’s current direction in early years education.

    Play-based/Inquiry-based learning, supported by numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, provides the gateway for robust and intentional opportunities for thinking and learning.  Rather than simply ‘following their interests’, as you note, skilled educators observe and listen to children engaged in authentic and contextualized investigation.  Through skillful responding and conversation, educators lift and extend the thinking….all the while keeping universal core concepts/Big Ideas in mind.

    During this process, educators attempt to make the thinking/learning visible – saying, doing, representing as captured through conversation, observation and student product… as referenced in Growing Success, our Ministry’s recent Assessment and Evaluation Document.

    This is not to say that Small Group/Individualized Instruction tailored to meet the unique needs of each child doesn’t occur.  On the contrary, differentiation is alive and well in this environment.  This is why we must remain ‘balanced’ as you say, in order to ensure that all children thrive.  This environment provides children with opportunities to construct new understandings of their worlds and the world around them while literacy and numeracy is embedded in authentic and relevant ways.

    You note that ‘at its best it may be true for 90% of children and teachers’.  This is significant.  If indeed it is, why WOULDN’T we embrace it?  Because of the 10% who may still be filled with cobwebs of confusion (Clay)?  For that 10%, we have small  group and individualized lessons along with systematic interventions in order to meet those unique confusions and prevent inefficient paterns of learning from habituating.   But to deny the best approach based on the assumption that 10% MAY be confused by it might be considered limiting in vision.

    I think we as a province of educators need to revisit the front matter of the FDELK document over the next year and begin serious conversations regarding how we define play/inquiry.  As a collective group, we can move away from simplistic definitions of ‘play’ and begin to align complex theories with research/practice along with serious discussion about how best to ensure all 3, 4 and 5 year olds thrive in our classrooms.

    Respectfully,
    Dean

    • http://www.carmelcrevola.com Carmel Crevola

      Dean
      I have no problem with what you say here. I have a problem with what I hear around the world in the countries where I am working,not just in Ontario, with the generalization that because we are now focusing on a play based learning environment that the language aspect will be taken care of. This is not the case, despite an excellent document. There were excellent documents for a Balanced Literacy Block too, but look at what those two hours turned into in so many clasrooms. Why? Lack of deep understanding.  Documents will never bring change and knowledge base. We have to exemplify it in all types of settings with all types of teachers. We have to understand that what you articulate as the powerful play based classroom is not what the average teacher is currently able to support. It is a massive challenge to know all your students, to allow them to free explore, to track each child’s progress, to intervene at the point of need, to know just how to take the learning to the next place and to track it effectively and efficiently. I am in classrooms across the world, teaching side -by-side with teachers. I was in the classroom for 23 years, I know how hard this is. That is why there needs to be CLIPs (Breakthrough, 2006) but unfortunately the time has never been spent to fully understand the complexity of a CLIP in the pure form, so once again education, true to form, drops something and grabs another. 

      Yes, I agree with your last paragraph that indeed there needs to be deep discussions out what is the enquiry model and what is purposeful play? There is certainly not enough talk at the moment of the shape of the learning time and I am seeing powerful instructional strategies such as Shared Reading being done to close the day. Now where does that sit with the research and the literature about the power and purpose of Shared Reading? Why must we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why haven’t we built on what we know, what we have spent billions on getting teachers to do over 10 year period? Why are people being told to ‘throw out the Task Management Boards’?  Why is a Task Management Board seen as opposed to enquiry and play? A lack of understanding of how a TMB should have been used is the reason, once again lack of deep knowledge and misuse. This all smacks of ‘pendulum swing’ to me. This does not reflect thoughtful, informed, building on what we know and learning more.
      The dissemination of the knowledge has to be done carefully and slowly so as to build a continuous growth model of education and not a continuous change model.

      I want to support teachers to do the very best that they can. I am currently seeing teachers either totally overwhelmed at the aspect of trying to integrate what they know and believe in about focused instruction and aligning it to the new mandates or I see teachers totally going into play and forgetting anything about structured learning. Balance is indeed the key to any success.
      I am excited to be able to have a part to play in assisting the teacher that I work with to make sense of it all and to link what we know to what we ned to know more about.
      I hope we keep our interactions challenging our thinking
      Thanks and good luck
      CC

  • Aviva (@grade1)

    As you know Carmel (from our numerous Twitter chats), I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the comment that I want to leave on this post. I’m very torn on the issue of “play.” In fact, I had many of the same concerns that you did, which is initially why I left Kindergarten two years ago. I knew where the Kindergarten program was headed, and I didn’t think that I could embrace a philosophy that I didn’t believe in. I wasn’t sure how students were going to learn how to read and write in an environment that seemed so unstructured to me.

    My years in Grade 1 (and even a 1/2 last year) have shown me that “play” can happen successfully. We can give students control over their learning, allow them to explore, and see some incredible learning happening too. All that being said, I think that this takes time, and I also think that it takes some direct instruction (to the large and the small group) for it to be successful.

    The one thing that you said in your post that really got to me was when you discussed those students that don’t have the language background to be successful in a play environment. What about them? Our job as teachers is to teach all students and ensure that all students learn. If we’ve created an environment where we see that happening, then I support that environment, regardless of if it’s different between classrooms, but when we don’t, I think that’s a big problem. In that case, I think we need to re-explore what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. If there are students that are not successful in this play-based program, maybe we need to give them more direction. In my opinion, that doesn’t mean pulling out the worksheets and providing numerous hours of pencil-paper tasks. It does mean creating a language-rich environment for them. Sit down with these students and help direct the conversation, provide more visuals to assist with the interaction and provide scaffolding, try some more small group instruction to build on language skills, and use resources (such as your Let’s Talk About It kit) to really focus on oral language and really begin to develop reading and writing skills.

    I think that there is value to “play” in Kindergarten (and in other grades too), and I believe that there’s value to removing the pencil-paper black line master tasks that many of us used in the past, but I also hope that oral language development, reading, and writing does not get lost in this new program design too. I’ll be interested in hearing what others have to say on this very controversial topic! Thanks for a great post that really got me thinking!

    Aviva

    • http://www.carmelcrevola.com Carmel Crevola

      Aviva,
      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I know how you have puzzled over this topic. I completely agree with you with regard to letting go of the blackline masters and all the pencil and paper tasks that had taken over many Kindergarten/Reception classrooms. But this lack of understanding and over implementation,is what I fear most about this ‘new fad’ approach to play. If we look at the research and the literature on a Balanced Literacy block and the shape of Whole-Small-Whole instruction, there should never have been a focus on pencil and paper tasks to the degree that I saw in so many classrooms. The Literacy Block that came out of the Hill and Crévola(1997)model and as exemplified in Breakthrough (Fullan, Hill & Crévola, 2006) never had worksheet, teacher directed activities as constituting the bulk of the students time during a Literacy Block. But, as we all know, that is the interpretation that many ended up with. Why? Lack of understanding. Now, as we see the emphasis ‘swing’ to play, I am seeing the same – lack of understanding- being displayed. But I see far more dramatic negative effects from this lack of understanding as it will leave so much to ‘chance’. Leaving a low language child at the waterplay activity with four other young children for 30 minutes without adult intervention, engagement, scaffolding and modeling, will not bring deep learning to that child. 
      There is a place for play, exploration, enquiry, discovery and there always was. Who told teachers to stop all this when they began a Balanced Literacy Block? Certainly not me or any outcome of my research work. But it happened. 
      The word ‘balance’ still remains critical to me. 
      The word ‘focus’ still remains critical to me.
      Personalization and Precision still hold fast for me. 
      Show me these in action in a play based curriculum and I am all for it, show me formative assessment that finds the ‘starting points’ for learning for all students and I am all for it. 
      Show me purposeful, explicit instruction at the point of need, and I am all for it. 

      There are too many children who arrive at our classroom door and who do not have the foundations of language in place, they do not have the refined external and inner speech Vygotsky speaks of , that allows them to think aloud and finally process their thoughts internally. Language has not yet become purposeful for them. Yet there are many who arrive far advanced in their language and thinking skills. Knowing who these students are and making sure that I provide daily focused instruction for ALL students, but in particular for my most at risk language student is critical. 

      This is the key, from my perspective and backed up by my 15 years of evidence.  This need for deep understanding of language development and monitoring is even more important  in a play-based focus,where it can all look busy and fun and engaging, but in reality, there are a significant percentage of students who are unable to engage in the learning because of a lack of language skills to allow the thinking and connections to be made.
      Thank you again Aviva for making me think and reflect with you.
      Carmel

  • Laura Callaghan

    Carmel,
    I am really enjoying the conversation in this blog. The precision piece has been my concern as well as we shift into Full Day Kindergarten in Ontario.  We had 2 classes this year at my school.  I had many questions as principal and ensured I was involved in these classrooms as frequently as possible. What we saw this year was amazing- and the area we saw the most growth was in the area of oral language. We have data to support tremendous improvement  in student achievement in our 2 classrooms this year.  But I think the reason we saw the improvement we did is because of the precise small group instruction that was increased due to the fact there are 2 educators in the classroom (teacher and ECE) The teaching team moved and more away from whole class and more towards small targeted group instruction, with particular focus on oral language. The play provided in the classroom was planned and provided materials to engage the children. Instructors reflected and interacted with the children to tap into opportunities for intential teaching and also to sustain play and provoke children to more complex play. I witnessed an amazing increase in authentic writing coming out of the play experiences.  You are correct that we need to proceed with caution.  We can’t drop all  that we have learned.  But I have seen this year that play is powerful as long as it has a precise purpose.
    Laura C

  • Monique_vanalphen-flear

    Hi Carmel,
    PWe are about to embark on full day K in six classrooms in my school and I must say that the notion of an entirely play based classroom terrifies me! With new teachers along with ECEs new to the school setting and experience I really feel that we MUST maintain our strong literacy block in order for us to have a common structure and understanding so that we can continue our collaborative approach to understanding where our kids are and what they need. I’m am afraid that if we lose sight of our whole, small, whole group structure that the classrooms will become too loosey goosey and despite two adults observing that no one will really have a good handle on what the kids are demonstrating and needing. I’m excited to learn more about the play based learning but I want my school to tread lightly and be proud of what they have had such great success with in the past few years.

    • http://www.carmelcrevola.com Carmel Crevola

      Monique,
      You are right on! Keep your focus, take baby steps with reflection a must for all concerned. I know that you have a long way to go, but so does everybody. Do not throw away the gains you have worked so hard to establosh. tune into my blog, FB and YouTube, there will be some good information for you and your team to discuss and use for reflective sessions. Please keep in touch throw Skype, email etc.
      Good luck and send my best to the team.
      CC

  • Beth Stewart

    Hi Carmel
    Thank you so much, I love this format and am finally ready to weigh into the discussion.  I have really enjoyed reading the various responses.
    I agree that the key is balance.  A balance among sound assessment, focused, deliberate teachiing, and play-based inquiry.    
    It continues to be absolutely essential for teachers to have accurate and ongoing assessment to direct their teaching. (This is not new)
    The whole idea of play-based learning has to be balanced with informed, deliberate teaching for each child.  Yes, the differentiated instruction is difficult, but it is possible. (I taught in a Full-Day Kindergarten last year and having the DECE in the room allows a lot more time for small group and individual teaching as necessary).   The focused, deliberate small group instruction is a very powerful teachng strategy and  yields results.  (This is not new).  It is possible to use the child’s interest and inquiry as a vehicle for teaching, but we are still the professionals who know the curriculum and are responsible for moving the students forward in their learning.  (This is not new)
    I agree that it would be very unfortunate to let the swing of the educational pendulum knock the baby out with the bath water. 
    Beth Stewart

    • http://www.carmelcrevola.com Carmel Crevola

      Beth
      As always you are reasoned and balanced and can see the bigger picture. It is professionals such as yourself that need to have their voice heard above the trumpeting  chorus of ‘this is new learning’. Those of us that have been around the educational cycle at least twice in our careers know this to be not the truth. What we should have come to is a place of balance, it takes time to reach that place, it certainly took me a long time as a practicing teacher of 23 years continuous classroom teaching. But balance is not stagnation, it is reflection and innovation and seeking new understandings, but not allowing what we know to be effective be thrown away at the trumpet call.
      What grade level are you teaching this year. I would love to hear what you are up to, you can go to my webpage and message me.
      Thanks for sharing
      CC

  • Pingback: Understanding the connection « bluyonder

  • Pingback: Let’s make sure we are not playing our way to collective ignorance! | | Leading Schools of the Future | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: My Homepage