The challenges of promoting literacy within a play …...Literacy Integration Within a Play-Based...
Transcript of The challenges of promoting literacy within a play …...Literacy Integration Within a Play-Based...
TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca
The Challenges of Promoting Literacy Integration within a Play-based Learning
Kindergarten Program: Teacher Perspectives and Implementation
Angela Pyle, Daniel Poliszczuk and Erica Danniels
Version Post-print/Accepted Manuscript
Citation (published
version)
Angela Pyle, Daniel Poliszczuk & Erica Danniels (2018) The Challenges of Promoting Literacy Integration Within a Play-Based Learning Kindergarten Program: Teacher Perspectives and Implementation, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32:2, 219-233, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2017.1416006
Publisher’s Statement
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Research and Child Education on January 19th 2018, available online:�http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10.1080/02568543.2017.1416006
How to cite TSpace items
Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace
because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.
This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
The Challenges of Promoting Literacy Integration within a Play-based Learning Kindergarten Program: Teacher Perspectives and Implementation
Abstract
Kindergarten teachers face the challenge of balancing traditional developmental
programming and contemporary academic standards. In classrooms following a play-based
learning framework, academic content such as literacy is to be taught within children’s play.
However, educators have reported both conceptual and practical challenges with integrating play
and literacy. Although the educative contexts of direct instruction, teacher-guided play, and
child-directed free play have been individually examined and endorsed for promoting early
literacy, the enactment of literacy behaviours across these contexts in kindergarten has not been
widely examined. The current study investigated teacher perspectives on play and literacy
development and the resulting integration of literacy behaviours across educative contexts. Semi-
structured teacher interviews and video data were collected in 12 participating classrooms.
Results revealed three common challenges with integrating play and literacy learning: direct
instruction plays a key instructional role, play is less structured and difficult to plan, and feeling
uncertain how to implement guided play. These challenges were reflected in the differing
frequencies of literacy behaviours observed across contexts. These results point to the need for
additional research and teacher training with respect to implementing guided play for literacy
learning, as well as strategies for balancing direct instruction with play-based approaches.
Keywords
play; kindergarten; literacy; pedagogy; teacher perspectives
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
2
Introduction
There is compelling evidence that children’s play has an important role in the
development of language and literacy during the early years (Roskos & Christie, 2013).
Accordingly, some early learning curricula have positioned play as a foundational context for
academic learning (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2016). However, research
examining teacher perspectives and practices while enacting play-based learning curricula have
uncovered some challenges with respect to integrating play and literacy learning (e.g., Baker,
2014; Pui-Wah & Stimpson, 2004). Although some educators endorse play as a vehicle for
learning, many continue to utilize primarily direct instruction methods for teaching early
academic skills, with varying possible reasons for this discrepancy suggested by researchers
(Foote, Smith, & Ellis, 2004; Hegde & Cassidy, 2009). A range of educative contexts commonly
observed in play-based kindergarten have been shown in the literature to demonstrate efficacy
for literacy learning; namely, direct teacher instruction, teacher-guided play, and child-directed
free play (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Han, Moore, Vukelich, & Buell, 2010; Van Oers &
Duijkers, 2013). However, the use of these different contexts to support literacy learning in
naturalistic classroom settings has not been widely examined. Insights about the occurrence of
literacy behaviours across these educative contexts, alongside teacher perspectives on the
benefits and/or challenges of each context for literacy learning, can help to illuminate factors
influencing teachers’ pedagogical decisions within the mandated play-based learning framework.
The current study investigated teacher perspectives on the integration of literacy learning in play-
based kindergarten, alongside observed classroom practices with respect to the enactment of a
range of literacy behaviours within three educative contexts: direct instruction, guided play, and
free play.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
3
Literature Review
Play-Based Learning
Kindergarten education has endured significant curricular changes in recent years,
including a shift towards incorporating more prescriptive academic standards (Hargreaves &
Goodson, 2006) as well as a shift towards the promotion of play-based learning pedagogy
(Synodi, 2010). Historically, children’s play has occupied an important role in the kindergarten
classroom as traditional conceptions emphasized the importance of teachers nurturing children’s
early personal and social development through student-centered activities and allowing children
to develop at their own pace (Manning, 2005). Literacy skills were often targeted more formally
through direct instruction or immersion in literacy tasks in the primary grades (Pressley et al.,
1998). However, in more recent decades, movements towards prescribed academic standards and
accountability in education have resulted in an increase in formal literacy expectations at the
kindergarten level (Miller & Almon, 2009). While historically play and learning have been
viewed as separate endeavours (Pramling Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006), educators are now
faced with the task of integrating academics and play in order to meet current curricular
mandates (e.g., Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2016). A growing body of research has
provided both theoretical and empirical evidence for the use of play-based learning strategies to
support areas of development and learning, including social competence (Binder, 2014), self-
regulation abilities (De La Riva & Ryan, 2015), mathematics (Casey et al., 2008), and literacy
skills (Sharp, Escalante, & Anderson, 2012). Research has demonstrated that students in
classrooms utilizing play-based pedagogies have outperformed students in classrooms primarily
utilizing direct instruction in numeracy (Presser, Clements, Ginsburg, & Ertle, 2015), literacy
(Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013), and general cognitive outcomes (Walsh et al., 2006). However, a
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
4
lack of agreement is evident among researchers regarding the types of play-based learning
endorsed and the optimal role of the teacher in play (Pyle, DeLuca, & Danniels, 2017).
Recent qualitative research has revealed varying perspectives and interpretations of play-
based learning among educators in the kindergarten classroom. While some teachers have been
found to endorse the concept of learning through play and advocate for adult involvement in
children’s play, others have communicated challenges with integrating play with academic
learning and conceptualize play as a purely child-directed endeavour (Pui-Wah, 2008; Pyle &
Bigelow, 2015). Furthermore, many practical challenges with implementing play-based learning
have been reported, including a lack of training (Howard, 2010), pressure to ensure children
attain high academic standards (Leggett & Ford, 2013), large teacher-child ratios (Lynch, 2014),
and a lack of time and space to support play (Hegde & Cassidy, 2009). Demands for students to
achieve higher academic learning outcomes have not been matched with pedagogical support to
help teachers incorporate these goals into the context of kindergarten education (Fleer, 2010). As
a result, both conceptual and practical challenges have been uncovered in the shift towards
following a mandated play-based learning framework. These challenges are concerning in light
of the important early learning outcomes outlined to be targeted through play in the kindergarten
years, including the development of key literacy and pre-literacy skills.
Early Literacy
The learning that occurs during kindergarten has a significant impact on later academic
achievement (Duncan et al., 2007; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). It marks an
important academic period that starts to bridge emergent literacy, which includes phonological
processing (Wagner and Torgesen, 1987) and vocabulary skills (Biemiller, 2003), to formal
academic skills such as decoding (Armbruster, Lehr, Osborn, Adler, & Noonis, 2010; Solari et
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
5
al., 2014). In 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) identified several core literacy skills as
essential for the acquisition of reading ability including alphabetics, fluency, and text
comprehension (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). The category of alphabetics includes
both phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. Phonemic awareness is the understanding
that language is a composition of constituent parts that can be broken down and manipulated
(NRP, 2000), and is a strong early predictor of later reading ability (Stahl and Murray, 1994).
Alphabet knowledge involves learning the names and sounds associated with different letters.
Fluency is generally regarded as the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and expression (Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). Students learn to develop reading fluency through acquiring
decoding skills that support independent reading (Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006) and
developing automaticity in their word reading ability (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005). Finally,
comprehension involves the dual processes of vocabulary growth and narrative reasoning (NRP,
2000). Vocabulary growth in particular has been strongly associated with reading achievement
(Biemiller, 2003). All of these skills have been shown to emerge through everyday activities and
interactions (Connor, Morrison, & Slominski, 2006), but often also require more direct
instruction, particularly for students with weaker literacy ability (Botts, Losardo, Tillery, &
Werts, 2012). Within play-based classrooms, navigating the balance between scaffolding
academic knowledge and skills in child-directed contexts (i.e., play) and teacher-directed
instruction often produces tensions about how to best foster literacy skills (Saracho, 2012). It is
not yet well known how these key literacy behaviours are being practiced within different
educative contexts in play-based kindergarten classrooms.
Classroom Learning Contexts
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
6
Direct instruction. Children’s learning of curricular content can occur in several distinct
classroom contexts, the prevalence of which is often based on the pedagogical philosophy of the
educator and the legislative jurisdiction of the school board (Beatty, 2011; Stipek and Byler,
1997; Synodi, 2010). One of the most universal approaches to pedagogy in kindergarten is the
direct instruction of academic content, which is characterized by lessons that are both highly
structured and teacher-directed. Direct instruction is often considered to be a didactic
instructional mode in which teachers explicitly transmit academic content at a pace that they
themselves set, typically followed by guided or independent work by students (Drake, Kolohon,
& Reid, 2014; Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009). Examples of direct instruction in kindergarten
are whole class lessons (such as circle time) and small group lessons, in which the teacher
introduces content and coordinates the activity. It has been demonstrated to be an effective
teaching pedagogy for literacy particularly for children with academic difficulties or lower SES
(Beck and McKeown, 2007; Gersten, Darch, & Gleason, 1988). While direct instruction is
prevalent in North American kindergarten classrooms (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016),
criticisms about the developmental appropriateness of highly structured kindergarten programs
have led some educators and policy-makers towards more child-centered pedagogies, such as
play-based learning. This movement towards play-based learning is supported by research into
the efficacy of play as a valid learning context for curricular content (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, &
Golinkoff, 2013).
Free play. Unlike direct instruction, a play-based pedagogy provides more opportunities
for children to lead their own learning through play. This context encourages learning through
playful exploration, experimentation, and peer interaction (Van Oers and Duijkers, 2013). There
is wide acknowledgement that free play, or play that is freely chosen and child-directed (e.g.,
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
7
Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Newcombe, & Golinkoff, 2013), can be an effective means of fostering a
range of developmental competencies such as personal skills, self-regulation (Elias and Berk,
2002), and social skills (Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson, 2006), as well as abilities that
support academic learning, such as oral language development (Saracho, 2012). When free play
is used as a classroom learning context, it allows students to independently select and explore
activities that can promote learning, and engage with curricular content at their own pace (Walsh
et al., 2006). Early learning programs and curricula that emphasize play as a foundation for
learning have demonstrated promising outcomes in multiple domains (e.g. Blair and Raver,
2015), including language and literacy development (Stagnitti, Bailey, Stevenson, Reynolds, &
Kidd, 2015). In contrast to classroom environments that rely heavily on teacher directed literacy
instruction, there is support for the assertion that these skills can be taught effectively through
play scenarios (Weisberg et al., 2013). Van Oers and Duijkers’ (2013) study compared classroom
environments in which teachers engaged in direct instruction for literacy to classrooms in which
teachers relied on setting up play environments for students that contained material that
promoted the integration of targeted skills. The findings demonstrated that this approach resulted
in greater acquisition of new words than classrooms with direct instruction (Van Oers and
Duijkers, 2013). Furthermore, the use of play-based settings has been found to strengthen
children’s literacy development by offering the opportunity for children to engage and share
knowledge amongst peers (Vukelich, 1993), thus effectively increasing the number of available
sources of information for each student within the classroom.
Guided play. When the educator leads the learning, it is often based on specific pre-
determined curricular learning goals. However, teachers can also integrate purposeful and
directed learning within children’s play activities by taking an active role in the play, an
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
8
instructional strategy often referred to as guided play (Weisberg et al., 2013). During guided
play, the educator can engage in a variety of practices to embed or scaffold academic learning
within children’s play activities such as providing comments or questions, becoming an active
co-player, or leading games and activities that address curricular content in a playful manner
(Fisher et al., 2013; Jones & Reynolds, 2011). While free play is emphasized as a primarily
child-directed endeavour, guided play emphasizes the importance of active educator involvement
in order to embed or extend academic content within children’s play activities. Guided play can
be an effective strategy for fostering literacy in young children. For example, a study by Han et
al. (2010) examining the efficacy of a targeted vocabulary instructional protocol found that
kindergarten-aged children engaged in cooperative play with an adult demonstrated enhanced
vocabulary learning over those who only received direct instruction. The authors attributed these
gains to the ability of the playful context to motivate children to engage with the academic
content (Han et al., 2010). However, the authors also acknowledged that more research into how
guided play supports learning in naturalistic classrooms is required to better understand the
processes of student learning in kindergarten.
Teacher Perspectives
Several factors that have been found to influence the implementation of play-based
learning stem from teachers’ reported perspectives and challenges with integrating play and
learning in the classroom (e.g., Pyle & Danniels, 2017). In a recent scoping review of research
addressing play-based learning in kindergarten (Pyle, DeLuca, & Danniels, 2017), studies that
examined teacher perspectives and practices while implementing play-based learning curricula
revealed some common themes, including reported difficulties with integrating the concepts of
play and learning (e.g., Vong, 2012), endorsing the concept of learning through play but
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
9
primarily implementing direct instruction (e.g., Hegde & Cassidy, 2009), and citing practical
barriers to the implementation of play-based learning strategies (e.g., Hu, Fuentes, Wang, & Ye,
2014). Teachers who have reported challenges with integrating the often dichotomously viewed
concepts of play and learning have been found to focus primarily on implementing direct
instruction and free play in their classrooms, while teachers who endorsed the view that literacy
learning can be accomplished through play have been found to implement more guided play
alongside free play and direct instruction (Pyle, Prioletta, & Poliszczuk, 2017). Teachers’
understandings of the relationship between play and literacy learning was thus found to be
related to their subsequent implementation of play-based pedagogy. However, other studies have
found that while educators in several countries endorsed children’s ability to learn through play,
they continued to primarily utilize methods of direct instruction to address academic learning
(e.g., Kim, 2004; Pui-Wah & Stimpson, 2004). Some potential reasons for this discrepancy put
forth by researchers included teachers’ underlying beliefs regarding the importance of direct
instruction, pressure to meet accountability requirements, past teacher training experiences,
following routine practices, or social desirability bias towards endorsing play as pedagogy (Foote
et al., 2004; Hedge & Cassidy, 2009). Lastly, teachers have reported practical challenges in
implementing play-based pedagogy, such as a lack of professional development or training in
play and pressure from parents and/or administration to achieve prescribed academic outcomes
(Howard, 2010; Leggett & Ford, 2013). These practical challenges were reported by teachers as
influencing the pedagogical decision to implement more direct instruction and resulted in fewer
opportunities for play-based learning.
Objective
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
10
While these three early learning contexts (direct instruction, guided play, and free play)
have been examined separately with each demonstrating a capacity for fostering literacy learning
(Beck & McKeown, 2007; Han et al., 2010; Van Oers & Duijkers, 2013), it is not yet clear how
each context uniquely contributes to the practice of literacy skills in play-based kindergarten
classrooms. The purpose of the current study was to examine teacher perspectives on literacy
development and play-based learning, and examine the resulting integration of key early literacy
behaviours within direct instruction, guided play, and free play contexts in kindergarten
classrooms. This examination of both teacher perspectives and observed literacy practices will
illuminate factors influencing teachers’ pedagogical decisions for early literacy learning in play-
based kindergarten.
Method
Study Context
Ethical approval was granted by the University and two school district ethical review
committees. One of the school districts was located in a suburban area, and the other in an urban
area. Consent was provided by twelve kindergarten teachers to collect data in their classrooms in
a metropolitan district in Ontario, Canada. While schools were embedded within two distinct
school districts, every teacher used the same provincially mandated kindergarten program as a
basis for instruction. This setting was a natural context for this research as changes to the
kindergarten curriculum initiated in 2010 created a program based on principles of play-based
learning (OME, 2010). The updated program was intended to give children the opportunity to
experience a full day of enriching, play-based learning in a setting that encourages curiosity and
promotes learning in core academic areas (OME, 2016). Using a pedagogical paradigm of
developmentally appropriate practice at its core, the curriculum positions children’s play as an
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
11
essential context for learning and development (OME, 2010), and accordingly, the mandate of
the ministry requires educators to teach academic skills through play, under the provision of
play-based learning (OME, 2016). Based on this premise, all academic strands, including
language and literacy, are taught and assessed through the paradigm of children’s play.
Participants and Data Sources
Twelve kindergarten teachers with between 3 and 26 years of experience (M = 11.75
years) participated in the study. Half reported receiving some type of training on the role of play
in the kindergarten classroom: four teachers reported participating in one or more workshops on
play-based learning, and two independently sought out and completed online courses on the
subject of play. Five teachers stated that they had received no prior training in play, and one did
not share any information about prior professional development about play-based learning.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participating teacher. These
interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview questions focused on the
teachers’ perspectives regarding the role of play in children’s learning (i.e., What aspects of
student learning are enhanced by engaging in play?), the teacher’s role in play (i.e., How do you
support student learning during play?), and the relationship between play and literacy learning
(i.e., What is the role of play in developing literacy skills?).
Active parental consent and student assent to participate in the research were received
from a total of 175 students across the twelve classrooms. A minimum of 10 hours of
observational data within each participating classroom were collected, including video recorded
observations of periods of literacy-focused teacher-directed instruction, children’s self-directed
play, and periods where teachers participated in children’s play. The definition of play utilized
by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2010) was followed, whereby play was defined as “child-
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
12
initiated free play and more structured play-based learning opportunities” (p. 13). Teacher-
directed activities included all contexts where the educator took the lead in transmitting
academic content related to literacy, and consisted of direct whole class, small group, and
individual student instruction. A total of 1755.75 minutes of recorded footage was coded across
all 12 classrooms.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Teacher interviews were coded line-by-line using an inductive method of analysis
(Patton, 2002). Codes were developed from the data and teacher codes were compared across
classes using a method of constant comparison. These codes were then organized into common
themes that emerged across several teachers, including perspectives on the relationship between
play and literacy development and the challenges associated with integrating literacy learning in
play.
Classroom videos were categorized by learning context: teacher-directed instruction, play
with no adult involvement (free play), or play that included teacher involvement (guided play).
Upon completion of the categorization, videos within each category were analyzed using a
coding frame consisting of five literacy behaviours (Table 1). Within the coding frame, three
literacy skills, fluency, comprehension, and alphabetics, were based on recommendations from
the NRP’s report (2000). While not included in the NRP report, the skill of writing was also
included in the analysis as writing skills during kindergarten are predictive of general literacy
achievement (Aram and Biron, 2004; Shatil, Share, & Levin, 2000). A fifth skill representing the
students’ understanding of text conventions was also added owing to its role in supporting
emergent literacy through print awareness (i.e., book handling skills) (Justice and Pullen, 2003).
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
13
All five of these literacy behaviours are present within the Ontario kindergarten curricular
document (OME, 2016).
Due to the variable nature of play and instructional episodes, video recordings were not a
standardized length. An interval coding method was thus selected to analyze the amount of time
spent within each of the literacy skills. Each video was coded in 15-second intervals. Within
each 15-second interval only the most prevalent literacy behaviour was coded. It is important to
note that fluency and comprehension behaviours were generally absent in play-based contexts,
which can be partially attributed to the difficulty of coding those behaviours. Student
engagement with a text (i.e., looking at a page in a book) could not be reliably coded as
independent reading without clear verbal data to corroborate whether they were actually
demonstrating fluency or narrative comprehension, thus nearly all footage of student engagement
with books was coded as a text convention behaviour. To assess the reliability of the coding, a
second independent rater coded 20% of the videos. The interrater reliability as measured by the
intraclass correlation coefficient was acceptable at .74.
Results
All 12 teachers identified challenges with respect to integrating the teaching of prescribed
literacy standards within the play-based learning framework. Specifically, three distinct issues
were repeatedly identified in the teacher interviews: 1) direct instruction plays a key role in
literacy learning; 2) play is less structured and difficult to plan; and 3) feelings of uncertainty
regarding how to get involved in children’s play to promote literacy learning. Each of these
themes was evidenced within the observational data. Specifically, the frequency of observed
literacy behaviours across each classroom context provided support for the challenges that were
described by the teachers.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
14
Challenge #1: Direct instruction plays a key role in literacy learning
Teacher perspectives. Although play was consistently viewed by teachers as fulfilling
an important role in certain areas of child development, such as in the development of social
skills and self-regulation abilities, 50% of these teachers felt that direct instruction fulfilled a key
instructional component for promoting early literacy learning. In particular, time dedicated to
small group instruction was highlighted as providing a critical opportunity to target early reading
skills before children could benefit from less structured activities, like play:
I wish I had more time for that explicit instruction around reading behaviours
because I do think that they do pick it up through the activities you're doing
in the room and I love that that can happen in an authentic way but they need
the tools first to do that. And I think those tools are best taught in those small
group environments. (Teacher 4)
Small group instruction was believed to be the context in which the majority of literacy learning
took place: “That’s where I find most of the direct learning happens. When you sit with like three
or four of them and really get into stuff” (Teacher 7). Playtime was deemed important, but did
not serve the same crucial role as small group instruction: “The play is important, but for me,
having the small guided groups are key” (Teacher 2). These teachers emphasized the key role of
direct instruction periods for early literacy learning.
Implementation. Half of the teachers reported direct instruction as a valuable context for
addressing the learning of literacy skills and it was also the most prevalent classroom context
observed, accounting for 4987 (71%) of all intervals. This included periods of both large and
small group instruction directed by teachers. Furthermore, the mean for total literacy behaviours
observed was highest in the context of direct instruction (M = .54, SD = .15), observed
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
15
approximately 54% of the time in this context, when compared to guided play and free play.
Teachers expressed the viewpoint that focused teaching, particularly in small group settings,
served as an essential component of literacy instruction, and this was reflected in the higher rates
of literacy behaviours present in this context compared to guided play and free play. While
teachers did not specifically discuss the teaching of alphabetics in this context, it was the literacy
behaviour observed most often (M = .24, SD = .16), followed by fluency (M = .11, SD = .07).
The expressed perspective that direct instruction played an essential role in students’
learning may have been influenced by structural factors currently in place in kindergarten in
Ontario. For example, 67% of these teachers discussed one or more structural factors impacting
pedagogical decisions, such as experiencing pressure to ensure their students met the high
academic standards contained within the current curriculum: “The board expects the SKs [Senior
Kindergarten students – 5 year olds] to be reading at a particular level, there’s a lot of pressure,
and they’ve now put that level up higher…it’s hard with that pressure coming down from the
board, especially now with this new play-based program” (Teacher 1). High accountability
standards throughout the elementary years have resulted in teachers feeling “that top down stress
about going into grade one” (Teacher 7). The kindergarten curriculum presented a challenge for
these teachers in terms of its size: “I feel that the curriculum is huge. I don’t know how we’re
supposed to do it” (Teacher 9). The teachers felt pressure to ensure that they addressed all of the
academic standards present in the curriculum, which may have impacted the choice to focus
predominantly on direct instruction in the classroom.
Challenge #2: Play is less structured and difficult to plan
Teacher perspectives. Following from the importance of dedicating time to teacher-
directed instruction, play was viewed as containing far less structure from adults and requiring
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
16
more flexibility in planning than direct instruction, which was an expressed source of difficulty
for 50% of these teachers when implementing a play-based curriculum. In the Ontario
kindergarten program teachers are mandated to provide time for students to engage in self-
directed free play, while at the same time to ensure that children meet curricular benchmarks. In
order to fulfill both of these mandates, the curriculum advises that teachers embed academic
content within children’s play; however, the open-ended nature of play resulted in confusion. “I
would like it more structured. I’m used to the old way I taught kindergarten, when I first started
teaching, there was more structure in it. Now it’s just open-ended. I’m so confused sometimes on
what to do” (Teacher 11). Furthermore, not only was it difficult to infuse academic learning
within free play, but several teachers described the challenge of sharing control with the children.
Dedicating time to child-directed play activities meant that teachers must give up control and
maintain a flexible position in the classroom, resulting in teachers not always being able to
follow a desired schedule. “We have to kind of take into account it’s the children’s ideas that are
driving it, so, I don’t know, I feel like I’m not really in control” (Teacher 1). Half of these
teachers conveyed the challenges inherent in following the children’s lead as it was less
structured by adults, resulting in teachers experiencing some confusion and a perceived lack of
control over what can be done to enhance children’s academic learning within their free play
activities.
Implementation. Teachers’ reported challenges concerning the unstructured nature of
play may have stemmed from the lack of literacy behaviours that emerged within children’s own
free play, as literacy behaviours were observed the least often within this context. Children’s
free-play contexts were observed within 1664 (23.7%) of intervals. Children in these classrooms
spent on average 28% of their time engaged in literacy behaviours within free play (M = .28, SD
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
17
= .14), compared with approximately 54% of the time within direct instruction. With respect to
the literacy behaviours that did occur, writing (M = .12, SD = .10) and text conventions (M =
.11, SD = .06), were observed the most often, which did not align with the strong focus on
alphabetics observed during teacher-directed instruction. Of the means that were reliably
calculated, alphabetics was observed the least often (M = .05, SD = .05), and one third of the
classrooms had no alphabetics-integration during free play. The previous observation that
alphabetics was the most frequently occurring literacy behaviour in teacher-directed instruction
suggests that alphabetics were generally strongly promoted by teachers, but scarcely present
during free play; and this was reflected in the teachers’ viewpoint that free play posed challenges
as a context for literacy learning.
Challenge #3: Teachers are uncertain about how to implement guided play
Teacher perspectives. 67% of the participating teachers expressed some uncertainty
when discussing the implementation of guided play in their classrooms. Although they cited
difficulties with following the children’s lead in play to promote learning, they expressed some
confusion regarding how to find a middle ground between teacher-led direct instruction and
child-led free play: “I’m really interested in learning about the study and more about play…and
literacy and language because it always feels like it’s either instruction or play but why can’t
there be somewhere kind of in the middle?” (Teacher 3). Teachers expressed some confusion
regarding the optimal role of the adult during times of play and what can be done in the moment
to support academic learning: “What do you do? What’s your next step? What do you say, how
do you say it back? You know talking them through it. And it’s hard” (Teacher 10). These
teachers shared many unanswered questions regarding how to effectively implement guided play.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
18
Implementation. The majority of these teachers expressed feelings of uncertainty and
confusion with respect to how to effectively implement guided play in the classroom, and this
was reflected in the low rates of teacher involvement observed in times of play, numbering only
372 of the total intervals (5.3% of the time). However, within this context, literacy behaviours
were observed on average 40% of the time (M = .40, SD = .26) across the classrooms, an
increase from an average of 28% of the time within free play. The low incidence of guided play
observed and the teachers’ expressed lack of clarity regarding how to implement guided play
demonstrate that these teachers had not yet wholly integrated guided play strategies into their
teaching pedagogies.
Although guided play was the context observed the least often, when teachers did become
involved in children’s play, there was an increase in observed literacy behaviours over free play
alone. It was found that the context of guided play contained the greatest amount of variability in
literacy behaviours among the three contexts, as represented by the high standard deviations in
each observed literacy behaviour in that context; however, key literacy behaviours such as
alphabetics were observed within times of guided play at similar rates as in direct instruction
(alphabetics in guided play: M = .16, SD = .16). This is notable as it demonstrated that taken as
an instructional context, guided play can provide similar levels of exposure to core literacy
domains, though because it was delivered in the activity of play, students may have been more
motivated to engage with that content (Bulunuz, 2013; Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995).
The observed rates of literacy behaviours suggest that guided play could be a valid context for
promoting literacy behaviours, however, there was little consistency in how this was performed.
Discussion
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
19
Three core themes emerged through exploring teacher perspectives about the integration
of literacy education within a play-based learning pedagogy and observing how this integration
is enacted within the classroom. Each of these themes comprised a challenge that was inherent
for implementing a play-based learning curriculum. Namely, the participants in this research
identified apprehensions about the efficacy of play as a context for literacy learning, the
difficulties of planning free play experiences, and confusion about their roles within play
activities. These themes were consistent across the classrooms, and reflected the challenges that
teachers experienced when planning a play-based learning program that was both
developmentally appropriate as well as accountable for student literacy achievement.
Free Play
The curriculum mandates that children be provided opportunities to engage in self-
initiated free play (OME, 2010). Many of the teachers in this study did not believe that free play
alone would suffice for their students’ literacy acquisition, and indeed, most classrooms
demonstrated few literacy behaviours during free play. This apprehension was reflected in the
frequency with which they scheduled direct instruction over other instructional contexts. This is
consistent with previous research demonstrating that teachers were confident about the role of
play for developmental gains, but more sceptical when it came to academic learning (Pui-Wah,
2008). However, teacher perceptions about the value of play for literacy may have also
influenced the frequency of children’s literacy behaviours during free play. For example,
teachers who believed that play has limited value for literacy learning may be less likely to plan
play experiences that contain artefacts of literacy, such as writing tools and books (Pyle et al.,
2017), thereby reducing student opportunities to engage with those materials within play.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
20
Teacher beliefs about the lack of efficacy of play for academic learning might be further
reinforced by the absence of academic integration that was observed in several of this study’s
classrooms. Specifically, if teachers do not witness children demonstrating academic learning
during play, as was observed in several classrooms, then the need to implement free play might
be perceived as a frustrating necessity. Moreover, the absence of particular literacy behaviours,
such as alphabetics, may have prompted teachers to devote more time to covering them within
direct instruction. Although we have seen that literacy learning can develop in play experiences
(Van Oers & Duijkers, 2014), we also have evidence that teacher involvement is important.
Guided Play
Teachers who extend literacy content into guided instruction can deepen children’s learning
(Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli Jr., & Kapp, 2013). Moreover, direct instruction of literacy in
kindergarten does not ensure that students will meet curriculum targets (Xue & Meisels, 2001),
so increasing opportunities for literacy engagement through multiple means may improve
children’s literacy skills (Van Oers & Duijkers, 2014). One important way that teachers can
promote learning within play is by directly scaffolding academics while taking on an active role
in play (Jones & Reynolds, 2015). In this study, the challenge of planning play experiences that
provide opportunities for academic learning was compounded by teachers’ reported feelings of
uncertainty regarding how to embed themselves within play to scaffold the learning. This
difficulty may be rooted in the relatively novel move towards play-based learning within
elementary education. While children’s play has been the focus of developmental research for
decades, the integration of play as a paradigm for academic learning is a more recent shift
(Bodrova, 2009; Cheng & Johnson, 2009). The relative novelty of this paradigm for learning
means that teachers may not have had opportunities during their pre-service training and in-
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
21
service professional development to develop strategies for implementing a play-based learning
program. This is consistent with previous research that identified implementation challenges
during the initial stages of delivering play-based programs (e.g., Martlew, Steven, & Ellis, 2011).
While the curriculum that was in place at the time of the study instructed teachers to create
opportunities for both teacher and child-initiated activities, it was less clear about the ways that
they could actively participate within the play to encourage the learning of curricular content
(OME, 2010). However, in those moments in which teachers did become involved in play, the
literacy behaviours increased. While guided play did not account for much of the overall literacy
behaviour (only 5.3% of the total intervals were from that context), the rate of alphabetics,
writing, and text convention content within that context was comparable to what was observed
during direct instruction. Our data echoed the findings of previous research (e.g. Roskos and
Christie, 2001) concerning the essential role of adult presence for play-literacy integration by
demonstrating that the presence of the educator provided a context in which he or she could
scaffold a skill or concept into the play. This is particularly important for literacy components
such as fluency and alphabetics, which have been more frequently observed through adult
instruction or intervention (Botts et al., 2012). These findings point to the need for additional
research and training with respect to classroom-based guided play strategies that can effectively
promote literacy learning in play-based kindergarten classrooms.
Balanced Approach
Free play did provide the opportunity for some literacy skill development for students as they
integrated writing and text conventions with some regularity. However, students’ primary focus
during free play is not the development of their own literacy skills and while the opportunity to
use these skills in a contextually relevant manner is useful and should not be overlooked, this
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
22
context in and of itself is not sufficient for the comprehensive development of literacy skills.
That being said, previous empirical findings of the benefits of free play to oral language
development, which is a foundational literacy skill, enforce the importance of maintaining this
context in kindergarten classrooms (Saracho, 2012).
Alternatively, direct instruction provided the opportunity for students to develop the core
literacy skills of alphabetics and fluency. These two skills are essential and are strong predictors
of later reading ability (Stahl & Murray, 1994). With the opportunity to develop these essential
literacy skills and the knowledge that direct instruction is valuable for students with weaker
literacy skills and lower SES (Beck and McKeown, 2007), this instructional context provides a
valuable learning opportunity for students. However, this finding is problematized by empirical
findings demonstrating that direct instruction is not as effective as play-based contexts for
encouraging the development of targeted skills (e.g., Han et al., 2010).
Guided play provides a context where the provision of teacher direction and extension in
play-based contexts provides the opportunity to integrate free play and direct instruction.
Previous research has expounded the benefits of this approach to the development of literacy
skills (Han et al., 2010). However, our findings demonstrate that teachers are struggling to
integrate this pedagogical approach in kindergarten classrooms as they are lacking clarity
concerning their role in their students’ play, including how and when to get involved.
Considering the challenges and benefits inherent in each of these pedagogical contexts,
our findings demonstrate the need to create a balanced pedagogical approach that includes
various modes of instruction and learning, including free play, direct instruction, and guided
play. The teachers in the current study conveyed the desire to implement different types of play
as well as direct instruction in the classroom to strive for a pragmatic and balanced approach to
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
23
early literacy learning. These findings are consistent with international studies from the United
States, Singapore, and Israel that have examined the beliefs of kindergarten teachers and found
that these educators primarily endorsed an eclectic or balanced approach to literacy learning,
rather than one single method or teaching strategy (Hindman & Wasik, 2008; Lim & Torr, 2007;
Sverdlov, Aram & Levin, 2014). One difficulty with developing a balanced instructional
approach for a play-based curriculum is that the research on guided play and direct instruction
tends to be either separate, or comparative of the two (i.e. Botts et al., 2014). More studies that
examine the integrated use of both guided play and direct instruction would support our
understanding of their respective roles for helping young children to learn. In addition, the
research concerning free play primarily considers its role in the development of more personal
and social skills than academic learning, and studies that address the development of academic
skills, such as literacy skills, in the context of free play are uncommon. Thus, the need to
examine the implementation of various forms of play in kindergarten classrooms, and the role
these play forms have in student learning is essential to the successful shift from strictly
academic kindergarten programs to programs that emphasize academic learning through
developmentally appropriate practices such as play-based learning.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
24
References
Ankrum, JW, Genest, MT and Belcastro, EG (2014) The power of verbal scaffolding:
“Showing” beginning readers how to use reading strategies. Early Childhood Education
Journal 42(1): 39–47.
Aram, D and Biron, S (2004) Joint storybook reading and joint writing interventions among low
SES preschoolers: Differential contributions to early literacy. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 19(4): 588–610.
Armbruster, BB, Lehr, F, Osborn, J, Adler, CR and Noonis, LT (2003) Put reading first: The
research building blocks of reading instruction: Kindergarten through grade 3 (3rd ed.).
Washington: National Institute for Literacy.
Bassok, D, Latham, S and Rorem, A (2016) Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open
1(4): 1–31.
Baker, F. S. (2014a) Teachers’ views on play-based practice in Abu Dhabi kindergartens,
International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(3), 271–286.
Beatty, B (2011) The dilemma of scripted instruction: Comparing teacher autonomy, fidelity,
and resistance in the Froebelian kindergarten, Montessori, direct instruction, and success
for all. Teachers College Record 113(3): 395–430.
Beck, IL and McKeown, MG (2007) Increasing young low income children’s oral vocabulary
repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal 107(3):
251–271.
Biemiller, A (2003) Vocabulary: Needed if more children are to read well. Reading Psychology
24(3-4): 323–335.
Binder, M. (2014) The storied lives children play: Multimodal approaches using storytelling,
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
25
Canadian Children, 39(2), 11–20.
Blair, C and Raver, CC (2015) School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental
psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology 66(1): 711–731.
Botts, DC, Losardo, AS, Tillery, CY and Werts, MG (2012) A comparison of activity-based
intervention and embedded direct instruction when teaching emergent literacy skills. The
Journal of Special Education 48(2): 120–134.
Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: does integrated play and
science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 21(2), 226-249.
Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A. & Copley, J. (2008) The
development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities,
Cognition & Instruction, 26(3), 269–309.
Connor, CM, Morrison, FJ and Slominski, L (2006) Preschool instruction and children's
emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(4), 665–689.
De La Riva, S. & Ryan, T. G. (2015) Effect of self-regulating behaviour on young children’s
academic success, International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 7(1), 69–
96.�
Drake, SM, Kolohon, W and Reid, JL (2014) Interweaving curriculum and classroom
assessment: Engaging the 21st century learner. Canada: Oxford University Press.
Duncan, GJ, Dowsett, CJ, Claessens, A, Magnuson, K, Huston, AC, Klebanov, P, . . . Japel, C
(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology 43(6):
1428–1446.
Elias, CL and Berk, LE (2002) Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
26
sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17(2): 216–238.
Fisher, KR, Hirsh-Pasek, K, Newcombe, N and Golinkoff, RM (2013) Taking shape: Supporting
preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child
Development 8(4): 1872–1878.
Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development. Cultural-historical concepts in play. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Foote, L., Smith, J. & Ellis, F. (2004) The impact of teachers’ beliefs on the literacy experiences
of young children: A New Zealand perspective, Early Years: Journal of International
Research & Development, 24(2), 135–147.�
Fuchs, LS, Fuchs, D, Hosp, MK and Jenkins, JR (2001) Oral reading fluency as an indicator of
reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of
Reading 5(3): 239–256.
Gersten, R, Darch, C and Gleason, M (1988) Effectiveness of a direct instruction academic
kindergarten for low-income students. The Elementary School Journal 89(2): 227–240.
Han, M, Moore, N, Vukelich, C and Buell, M (2010). Does play make a difference? How play
intervention affects the vocabulary learning of at-risk preschoolers. American Journal of
Play 3(1): 82–105.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and
nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.
Hegde, A. V. & Cassidy, D. J. (2009) Kindergarten teachers’ perspectives on developmentally
appropriate practices (DAP): A study conducted in Mumbai (India), Journal of Research
in Childhood Education, 23(3), 367–381.�
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
27
Hindman, A. H., & Wasik, B. A. (2008). Head start teachers’ beliefs about language and literacy
instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 479-492.
Howard, J. (2010) Early years practitioners’ perceptions of play: An exploration of theoretical
understanding, planning and involvement, confidence and barriers to practice,
Educational & Child Psychology, 27(4), 91–102.
Hudson, RF, Lane, HB and Pullen, PC (2005) Reading fluency assessment and instruction:
What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher 58(8): 702–714.
Hu, B. H., Fuentes, S. Q., Wang, C. Y. & Ye, F. (2014) A case study of the implementation of
Chinese kindergarten mathematics curriculum, International Journal of Science &
Mathematics Education, 12(1), 193–217.�
Jones, E and Reynolds, G (2011) The Play's the Thing: Teachers' Roles in Children's Play (2nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Justice, LM and Pullen, PC (2003) Promising interventions for promoting emergent literacy
skills: Three evidence-based approaches. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
23(3): 99–113.
Kim, M. (2004) Teachers’ philosophical orientation and practices: A study of novice preschool
teachers in South Korea, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(3), 276–292.�
Leggett, N. & Ford, M. (2013) A fine balance: Understanding the roles educators and children
play as intentional teachers and intentional learners within the Early Years Learning
Framework, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(4), 42–50.�
Lim, C., & Torr, J. (2007). Singaporean early childhood teachers' beliefs about literacy
development in a multilingual context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4),
409-434.
Lynch, M. (2014) Ontario kindergarten teachers’ social media discussion about full day
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
28
kindergarten, McGill Journal of Education, 49(2), 329–347.
Manning, J. P. (2005). Rediscovering Froebel: A call to re-examine his life & gifts. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 371-376.
McClelland, MM, Acock, AC and Morrison, FJ (2006) The impact of kindergarten learning-
related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 21(4): 471–490.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.
College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
National Reading Panel (2000) Summary Report. Bethesda: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2011). The full-day early learning—kindergarten program.
Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindergarten
_english_june3.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Education (2016). The Kindergarten Program 2016.
Retrieved from https://files.ontario.ca/books/edu_the_kindergarten_program_english_
aoda_web_july21.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London, UK: Sage.�
Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Johansson, E. (2006). Play and learning—Inseparable dimensions in
preschool practice. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 47–65.�
Presser, A. L., Clements, M., Ginsburg, H. & Ertle, B. (2015) Big math for little kids: The
effectiveness of a preschool and kindergarten mathematics curriculum, Early Education
& Development, 26(3), 399–426.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., ... &
Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
29
Reading, 5(1), 35-58.
Pui-Wah, D. C. (2008) Meta-learning ability—a crucial component for the professional
development of teachers in a changing context, Teacher Development, 12(1), 85–95
Pui-Wah, D. C. & Stimpson, P. (2004) Articulating contrasts in kindergarten teachers’ implicit
knowledge on play-based learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 41(4–
5), 339– 352.
Pyle, A. & Bigelow, A. (2015) Play in kindergarten: An interview and observational study in
three Canadian classrooms, Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(5), 385–393.
Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in
play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and
Development, 28(3), 274-289.
Pyle, A., DeLuca, C., & Danniels, E. (2017). A scoping review of research on play-based
pedagogies in kindergarten education. Review of Education. DOI: 10.1002/rev3.3097
Pyle, A., Prioletta, J., & Poliszczuk, D. (2017). The Play-Literacy Interface in Full-day
Kindergarten Classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0852-z
Roskos, KA and Christie, JF (2013) Gaining ground in understanding the play-literacy
relationship. American Journal of Play 6(1): 82–97.
Rupley, WH, Blair, TR and Nichols, WD (2009) Effective reading instruction for struggling
readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly 25(2-3): 125–
138.
Saracho, ON (2012) An Integrated Play-Based Curriculum for Young Children. New York:
Routledge.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
30
Sharp, A. C., Escalante, D. L. & Anderson, G. T. (2012) Literacy instruction in kindergarten:
Using the power of dramatic play, California English, 18(2), 16–18.
Shatil, E, Share, DL and Levin, I (2000) On the contribution of kindergarten writing to grade 1
literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics 21(1): 1–21.
Solari, EJ, Aceves, TC, Higareda, I, Richards-Tutor, C, Filippini, AL, Gerber, MM and
Leafstedt, J (2014) Longitudinal prediction of 1st and 2nd grade English oral reading
fluency in English language learners: Which early reading and language skills are better
predictors? Psychology in the Schools 51(2): 126–142.
Stagnitti, K, Bailey, A, Stevenson, EH, Reynolds, E and Kidd, E (2015) An investigation
into the effect of play-based instruction on the development of play skills and oral
language: A 6-month longitudinal study. Journal of Early Childhood Research 5: 1–18.
Stahl, SA and Murray, BA (1994) Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early
reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 86(2): 221–234.
Stipek, DJ and Byler, P (1997) Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they
preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12(3): 305–325.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional
approaches on young children's achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66(1),
209-223.
Sverdlov, A., Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2014). Kindergarten teachers' literacy beliefs and self-
reported practices: On the heels of a new national literacy curriculum. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 39, 44-55.
Synodi, E. (2010) Play in the kindergarten: The case of Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and
Japan, International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3), 185–200.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
31
Vadasy, PF, Sanders, EA and Peyton, JA (2006) Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten
students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator
implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(3): 508–528.
Van Oers, B and Duijkers, D (2013) Teaching in a play-based curriculum: Theory, practice and
evidence of developmental education for young children. Journal of Curriculum Studies
45(4): 511–534.
Vong, K. (2012) Play—a multi-modal manifestation in kindergarten education in China, Early
Years, 32(1), 35–48.�
Vukelich, C (1993) Play: A context for exploring the functions, features, and meaning of writing
with peers. Language Arts 70: 386–392.
Wagner, RK and Torgesen, JK (1987) The nature of phonological processing and its causal role
in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin 101(2): 192–212.
Walsh, G., Sproule, L., McGuinness, C., Trew, K., Rafferty, H. & Sheehy, N. (2006) An
appropriate curriculum for 4–5 year old children in Northern Ireland: Comparing play
based and formal approaches, Early Years, 26(2), 201–221.
Weisberg, DS, Hirsh-Pasek, K and Golinkoff, RM (2013) Guided play: Where curricular goals
meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education 7(2): 104–112.
ChallengesofLiteracy&Play
32
Table 1 Coding Frame of Literacy Behaviours Literacy Behaviour Indicators Fluency • Learning/teaching sight/high
frequency words (no deconstruction)
• Playing with/manipulating sight/high frequency words
• Modeling reading orally • Automatic decoding of text/fluent
reading
Comprehension • Vocabulary instruction • Inferencing/discussing meaning of a
text • Checking understanding of a text
Alphabetics • Phonemic awareness
games/instruction/discussion/play • Phonics games/instruction/play • Letter knowledge games/instruction
play • Spelling associated reading -
phonetic reading
Writing • Instruction/games/play about writing processes
• Modeling writing • Writing during play/activity
Text Conventions • Playing with books/text
• Modeling text features/reading processes
• Handling books/text