The Effectiveness of Play as an Instructional Strategy on Procedural Learning, Learner Enjoyment, and Instructional Design

Susan Codone, Ph.D.

Manager, Interactive Multimedia ProductionRaytheon Interactive Technologies600 University Office Blvd, Suite 6

Pensacola, FL 32504850-476-1750 ext 694

fax: 850-474-4807 scodone@raytheonpns.com

The Effectiveness of Play as an Instructional Strategy on Procedural Learning, Learner Enjoyment, and Instructional Design

This paper presents findings of a 1999-2000 dissertation study into the nature of play and its ap-

propriateness as an instructional strategy for procedural learning outcomes. The study has two

research questions. First, the study sought to identify the indicators of play from student, instruc-

tor, and designer perspectives. Second, the study investigated play as an instructional strategy

and questioned how play affects enjoyment and emotion. Results are presented and discussed.

The W-I-R-E Model of Play is presented as a strategy to be used by instructional designers to

embed play into instruction more effectively.

2

The Effectiveness of Play as an Instructional Strategy on Procedural Learning, Learner Enjoyment, and Instructional Design

Introduction

As a psychological construct and a method of learning activity, play has received much

attention over the years, but not a great deal of focused, investigative research. For this study,

play was defined as a phenomenon crossing both cognitive and behavioral lines that can be stim-

ulated by events or environmental effects. For play to occur in an instructional environment, the

following conditional characteristics should be present: surprisingness, novelty, incongruence,

randomness, suspension of reality, and variety (Levy, 1996).

In children, play has been studied to determine its composition -- its characteristics and

components, along with its meaning for childhood development. Yet there is a research void that

becomes larger as we approach adulthood. In adults, play has been studied as recreation and

leisure, but not as a serious method of learning. There is a critical lack of research into the im-

pact of play upon learning, especially in adults.

An emerging critical issue is the cognitive and affective impact of play in adult learning,

specifically within interactive multimedia instruction and other forms of electronic and virtual

training (Rieber, 1998). Distinct from gaming, as in video or computer games, which are rule-

driven and goal-oriented, the inclusion of play within interactive multimedia can be open, volun-

tary, pleasurable, and non-goal oriented. Technology-based play can also be elaborative and pro-

mote deeper processing by serving as an exploratory and investigative device. As the world

moves to be more dependent upon the Internet for information and learning purposes and as

adults allocate more leisure time to their computers, the importance of studying technology-

based play becomes increasingly critical.

3

Instructional research recommends strategies for technology-based learning that do not

typically include prescriptions for play. In fact, instructional strategies that are particularly ef-

fective with adult learners continue to evolve both in definition and application. Gagne, Briggs,

& Wager (1992), Jonassen (1996), and Merrill (1996) have written volumes of scholarly works

specifying hierarchies of instructional strategies and tactics to be used with differing types of

content but none include specifications regarding play. Berlyne (1968) describes the perplexing

and arduous task of attempting to compile a list of the most salient characteristics of play and

states that a characterization of playful behavior is not easy.

Given these research gaps, this study was undertaken to explore the impact of play on

adult learning and the possibilities of play as a viable instructional design strategy. The hypoth-

esis was that if play characteristics are present, then the instructional environment would effec-

tively stimulate play in the learners and influence the learning of the desired outcome through

play. The ultimate goal of the study was to begin to understand the indicators of play from stu-

dent, instructor, and designer perspectives and to apply those indicators to instructional design

specifications for interactive multimedia learning.

Two research questions framed this study. First, what are the indicators of play, and how

do indicators differ between student, instructor, and practitioner perspectives? Second, the study

asked how play can be used as a viable instructional strategy to accomplish the outcome of pro-

cedural learning.

Perspectives and Theoretical Framework

Educational and psychological literature is rich with expository and rhetorical descrip-

tions of play, but weak regarding measurable studies of the effectiveness of play in learning. A

4

review of the literature uncovered a rich repository of data regarding play as childhood and adult

activity but was incomplete concerning play relating to learning.

Defining Characteristics of Play

Play is a psychological construct that subsumes a variety of human behaviors and thus

has received a great deal of attention in the last 30 years. Emerging from a perspective that origi-

nally emphasized social adaptation as an effect of play in Montessori's writings in the early 19th

century and as an expression of primary needs in Freud's writing in the early twentieth century,

play has become connected to many other psychological constructs, such as language formation,

symbolism, abstraction of intellectual prototypes, acquisition of tool use, social skill develop-

ment, perspective or role taking, and the development of creativity (Sutton-Smith, 1979; Christie

& Johnsen, 1983).

As an abstract concept, play is sufficiently rich and ambiguous to effectively link to these

constructs and many more; however, a consensual, operational definition of play continues to

elude researchers in the fields of psychology, anthropology, education, and sociology (Lentz,

1982, Levy, 1978). Lentz summarizes this dilemma neatly by saying, "We seem to intuitively

know what play is, but we still have difficulty defining exactly what factors are involved in the

play process" (p. 68). F.A. Beach was one of the earliest to study play behavior in the animal

kingdom and make play generalizations to humans. Regarding the lack of understanding of play,

Beach stated:

On the other hand stands our undeniable ignorance as to the essential nature of play, its

causes and its results. The richness of observational evidence is in sharp contrast to the

poverty of scientific knowledge . . . . The majority of interpretations purporting to define

5

or explain play are speculative in nature, deductively derived, and completely untested.

(Beach, 1945, p. 523, 527)

In 1971, Herron and Sutton-Smith stated that the study of child’s play has attracted the at-

tention of researchers from many fields, including anthropology, biology, child development, ed-

ucation, psychology, psychiatry, recreation, and sociology. Yet despite the magnitude of con-

centration on play, it has never been an organized focus of scientific attention or sustained re-

search. Levy (1978), in his recommendation to employ the scientific method to the study of

play, describes the research of play behavior up to the 1970’s as being meager and devoid of tra-

ditional scientific approaches such as those used in the physical sciences.

Despite difficulties of definition, many researchers have managed to summarize the com-

mon characteristics that are present in most definitions of play and form the core of an emerging

theoretical stance on the role of play in graduated levels of development. Johann Huizinga

(1951) defined play as a “ . . . free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as

being ‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly.” (p. 13).

Christie and Johnsen (1983) state that cognitive, social, and psychomotor behaviors that consti-

tute play should have the following characteristics: (a) behavior which is intrinsically motivated,

spontaneous, and self-generated; (b) behavior which is pleasurable or connected with positive af-

fect expressed in the absence of highly anxious conditions -- play is not serious; (c) behavior that

varies individually and situationally -- play is flexible; and (d) behavior that is not literal or that

expresses an element of pretense and fantasy. Isenberg & Quisenberry (1988) add that play

should be process-oriented, exploratory, and active. Frost (1992) agrees with Christie and

Johnsen by describing play as an activity that is pleasurable, voluntary, spontaneous, devoid of

6

imposed tasks or regulations, intrinsically motivated, undertaken for process rather than expected

outcomes, and that requires active participation.

Behaviorist Influences on Play

Tenets of the behaviorist movement of educational psychology restricted the value of

play. Singer (1995) explains the impact of stimulus-response reductionism on psychology, par-

ticularly on play. Behaviorists contend that since children's play did not provide immediate ben-

efits in learning that were easily observable or measurable, their energies were directed toward

drill and practice exercises rather than playful, constructive effort.

Developmental Influences on Play

Singer writes that the early part of the twentieth century was characterized by the biologi-

cally based motivational systems of the type fostered by Sigmund Freud in the last 30 years of

his life and that play was perceived as largely an effort by children to deal with early conflicts

about psychosexual impulses. According to Singer (1995) and Cheska (1978), Freud believed

that children at play re-enact situations that they wish to master in order to deal with prior ten-

sions and conflicts. Singer described further that the independent research of Kurt Lewin, Lev

Vygotsky, and Jean Piaget was collectively responsible for refocusing the attention of re-

searchers away from behaviorist perspectives on play to more of a cognitive orientation through

the major cognitive psychological movement of the 1960s.

Play and Adult Learning

Gitlin-Weiner (1998) summarizes the work of several researchers by stating that some of

the common features that adults associate with play suggest that it is pleasurable, the antithesis of

work, free of extrinsic goals, and an absorbing process involving the temporary loss of awareness

of one's surroundings. Gitlin-Weiner also describes adult play as non-literal, spontaneous, an op-

7

portunity to bestow novel meanings onto objects, and an overt expression of wishes and hopes.

Gordon (1961) states that play in adults is not a lighthearted waste of time, but is a constructive

effort constituting a serious, form-making endeavor.

Cognitive Influences on Play

The shift to a cognitivist mindset, which promotes active mental processing and system-

atic changes in knowledge states, also does not allow great flexibility for the affective impact of

play, which is often emotionally charged and fluid. Cognitive learning emphasizes highly struc-

tured, hierarchical instruction that is linear and well defined. Constructivist instruction, with its

emphasis on student-centered learning, the active construction of knowledge, subjective mean-

ing, and learning situated in authentic, real-world environments, provides a more open and ac-

ceptable place for play in instruction.

Play and Creativity

A number of correlational studies indicate that a relationship exists between play and cre-

ativity. Alternately, creativity is defined as ideational fluency, flexibility, and originality (Wal-

lach & Kogan, 1965), and associative fluency (Dansky & Silverman, 1973). Play and creativity

have much in common. Play often involves symbolic transformations in which objects and ac-

tions are used in new and unusual ways, which is similar to the novel, imaginative combination

of ideas which usually result from creative thinking (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Gordon, in his

theory of Synectics (1961), believed play to be the “activity of floating and considering associa-

tions apparently irrelevant to the problem at hand” (p. 118). In this sense, Gordon emphasized,

play involves constructive illusion, conscious self-deceit, daydreams, and general associations

marked by no immediate benefit.

8

Play and Problem-Solving

A number of studies exist on the role of play in the problem-solving behavior of primates

(Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Sylva, Bruner, & Genova (1976) conducted one of the first studies

on play and problem solving in children. Subjects were exposed to three treatment conditions:

(a) observation of the complete solution, (b) free play with solution instruments, and (c) no treat-

ment. The play group did as well at problem-solving than did the group exposed to the complete

solution and much better than the control group, as well as exhibiting more persistence and goal-

directed behavior. Smith and Dutton (1979) modified the 1976 study, varying the levels of diffi-

culty in the problem-solving tasks and providing both observation and training to one group,

freeplay in another, and no treatment in a third. Their results showed that the children in the play

group solved problems better than either the observation and training group and the control

group.

Play and Motivation and Exploration

Other researchers have examined the motivational characteristics of play rather than its

cognitive or structural aspects (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Wolfe, Cummins, & Myers (1998)

state that explorative play must be characterized by "as-if" thinking, be internally motivating, and

personally meaningful. The research of Berlyne (1960) presents a model of motivation based on

arousal control, suggesting that organisms function comfortably with moderate stimulus informa-

tion. When the stimulus changes to that of novelty or incongruity, the organism responds with a

motivational state of curiosity (Christie & Johnsen, 1983). Exploration or investigation occurs to

allow the organism to gather enough information to assimilate and comprehend the situation, re-

ducing the arousal level. When environmental stimuli are insufficient to maintain a high level of

9

arousal, the organism seeks a diversion through exploration which, Christie & Johnsen (1983)

state, might be called play.

Bruner's contention that play minimizes the consequences of actions, allowing individu-

als to "try out" behaviors without risk, and Erikson's belief that play is practice for future roles in

adulthood (Lentz, 1982) lends credibility to play as an explorative device. The idea of ex-

ploratory play as a means to assimilate novel experience also meets Piaget's concepts of assimila-

tion and accommodation (Piaget, 1962). Singer (1995) posits that the playful attempt of children

to explore and manipulate experiences is related to Piaget's notion of assimilation of information

to established schemas. In this process of assimilation, Singer states, the child experiences joy

through the repetitive linking of earlier material with novelty. In addition, Piaget's (1962) idea of

equilibrium and disequilibrium is similar to Berlyne's (1960) idea of stimulus-based arousal; un-

til the information is assimilated into the existing knowledge base, disequilibrium occurs. Both

concepts resonate with Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, in which the development of

individuals is accelerated through peer interaction. Wolfe, Cummins, & Myers (1998) state that

exploratory play creates cognitive scaffolding within the player, and possibly allows growth be-

yond current competencies in the absence of peer interactions. Merrill (1997) describes play as a

way of encouraging exploration in procedural learning. He recommends that designers provide

an opportunity for students to “play with” a procedure, to allow the student to explore “what hap-

pens if” by trying out a variety of actions and observing the consequences. He supports the con-

clusion of Wolfe, Cummins, & Myers (1998) that exploratory play can be a form of cognitive

scaffolding if help is provided in the early stages of practice, with the gradual withdrawal of the

help until the student is able to perform the entire task without further guidance.

A Cognitive Model of Play and Learning

10

The relationship of play to cognitive development and learning is embedded in different

domains of thought and research. Early in the study of thought and reason, Aristotle considered

imagination to be the way that images are presented to the mind, stating that “the soul never

thinks without an image” (De Anima, 431a, 15-20). Much later, Paivio created his “Dual Cod-

ing Theory” (available: www.gwu.edu/~tip/paivio.html) in which he assumed that there are two

cognitive subsystems, one specialized for the representation and processing of nonverbal events

and the other for dealing with language. Paivio believed that learning is enhanced when both

cognitive subsystems are engaged; that is, when the learner processes both verbal and nonverbal

items. Craik and Lockhart (1972) studied memory and concluded that knowledge that gets en-

coded into memory depends on the depth or level of processing of the presented information as it

is encoded into memory. The depth of processing, in turn, depends on the continuum of sensory

to semantic processing. Jonassen (1988) studied microcomputer courseware and composed a set

of assumptions about how learning occurs, including:

Learners need to attend to stimuli;

Learners need to access existing knowledge to which to relate new knowledge;

Learners need to realign the structure of existing knowledge to accommodate the new infor-

mation;

Learners need to encode the restructured knowledge base into memory; and

Meaning is individualized, constructed by the learner, using existing knowledge as the foun-

dation for interpreting information and building new knowledge.

Jonassen echoed Craik and Lockhart’s emphasis on increasing the depth of processing through

the use of appropriate instructional strategies in courseware to promote the above methods for

learning. Among other methods for increasing processing depth include mental imagery, reflect-

11

ing Paivio’s beliefs, and Wittrock’s generative hypothesis (1978), which holds that meaning is

generated by activating and altering existing knowledge structures in order to intepret what is

presented. Generative learning is dependent on a complex set of elaborations and transforma-

tions unique to each learner (Jonassen, 1988).

Play and Instructional Design

Seymour Papert (1996), writing about learning, notes that while there are plenty of words

in our language for the art of teaching, there is no such word for the art of learning. What about

methods of learning, he says? What kinds of courses are offered for those who want to become

skilled learners? Papert goes on to say:

The same imbalance can be found in words for the theories behind these two arts. “Theory

of Instruction” and “Instructional Design” are among many ways of designating an aca-

demic area of study and research in support of the art of teaching. There are no similar

designations for academic areas in support of the art of learning.

Papert, 1996, p. 9

Instructional design is in search of a systematic means to design good, sound instruction.

Gagne, Briggs, & Wager (1992) state that instruction is a human undertaking whose purpose is

to help people learn. As seminal thinkers in instructional design, they believe that instruction

must be planned if it is to be effective. The purpose of designed instruction, they state, is to acti-

vate and support the learning of the individual student. How then does systematic, planned in-

structional design mesh with the sporadic, spontaneous, flexible nature of play?

Gagne, Briggs, and Wager (1992) list five abiding assumptions for the design of instruc-

tion. These are:

1. Instructional design must be aimed at aiding the learning of the individual;

12

2. Instructional design has phases that are both immediate and long-term;

3. Systematically designed instruction can greatly affect individual human development;

4. Instructional design should be conducted by means of a systems approach; and

5. Designed instruction must be based on knowledge of how human beings learn.

Assumptions 1-4 indicate that instruction should be systematic and aimed directly at the

individual. These assumptions indicate a rigidity of sorts within the field of design toward any

type of instructional activity that is fluid and/or constructed by the learner. Assumption number

five, however, provides a glimmer of access into taking the knowledge of how humans learn and

folding it into the way instruction is designed. If play is one way in which humans can learn,

then it stands to reason that instructional designers should study play to understand more about

how it can be used as a systematic instructional strategy to aid the learning of the individual.

An aim of this study was to isolate the conditions or characteristics of play so that in-

structional designers can use these components to design instructional strategies that aid student

learning. Currently, designers do not possess a knowledge base regarding the inclusion of play

in instructional strategies. Merrill (2000, p.2) describes this problem in more generic terms:

At the heart of my argument is that students must engage in those activities (conditions of

learning) that are required for them to acquire a particular kind of knowledge or skill. These

activities can be directed by an instructional system (live or technology-based) or they can be

engaged in by the student on their own. However (a) many instructors do not know these fun-

damental instructional strategies, consequently much of what passes for instruction is inade-

quate and does not adequately implement these fundamental learning activities; and (b) most

students are unaware of these fundamental instructional (learning) strategies and hence left to

13

their own are unlikely to engage in learning activities most appropriate for acquiring a partic-

ular kind of knowledge or skill.

The analysis and identification of the characteristics and conditions of play in learning

will be a solid contribution to the field of instructional design, in that it will become a new rubric

for the design of play within instruction. A long-term goal is to identify the "conditions of play”

to prescribe them for use by instructional designers. If so, it will mark a new era in the study and

application of understanding regarding play and the ability to train designers to “design play.”

Methods, Techniques and Modes of Inquiry

Methods of Data Collection

This study used a mixed method design to assess the effectiveness of using play as an in-

structional strategy on a procedural learning outcome as well as measuring the impact play on

participant enjoyment. The mixed-method design also was designed to probe participants to

learn the indicators of play.

Data collection methods in this study included participant observation, interviewing, and

quantitative analysis of an instructional intervention of a multimedia unit of instructional play

into an existing course using treatment and comparison groups. Multiple data collection meth-

ods were used to target a new understanding of play and its relationship to learning and instruc-

tion. Quantitative methods were used to provide a numerical description of the value of one in-

structional method over another.

Settings

The primary setting was the Cryptologic Technician Administrative (CTA) "A" School on-

board the Naval Technical Training Center, Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida. Within this set-

14

ting, students were observed, interviewed, and tested to document their perceptions of play and

learning from the phenomenological, experiential, and learning perspectives.

Participants

Participants in the primary setting onboard NTTC Corry Station were demographically

similar in age and prior knowledge. Participants were both male and female students, ranging in

age from 18-22 years old. Other participants onboard NTTC Corry Station included Navy in-

structors who are responsible for teaching the Navy students in the CT “A” school. Participants

in the secondary setting at the Raytheon office in Pensacola were professional instructional de-

signers and multimedia developers, ranging in age from mid-twenties to mid-sixties. One

graphic artist also participated.

Data collection was based on three major methods: Interviewing, intervention of a multi-

media treatment, and observation.

Interviews

In the primary study setting onboard NTTC Corry Station, participants were interviewed

to determine the following:

Past experiences with play;

Perception of the relationship between play and learning;

Indicators of play; when and why they recognize and self-report activities as playful;

How play in learning impacts their motivation for the content and learning outcomes;

How play in learning engages their emotions and interest;

If play can be experienced in isolation or if it only occurs in social groups;

How, during play, they interact with each other and with the source of play to create mean-

ing; and

15

How play can be embedded within instruction without distracting from learning goals.

Raytheon instructional designers and multimedia developers and Navy instructors were

interviewed to determine the following:

Past experiences with play;

Perception of the relationship between play and learning;

Indicators of play; when and why they recognize and self-report activities as playful;

How play in learning impacts their motivation for the content and learning outcomes;

How play in learning engages their emotions and interest;

If play can be experienced in isolation or if it only occurs in social groups;

How play can be designed into instruction;

The events or conditions of play within instruction;

How play can be matched with learning outcomes;

The relationship between play and cognitive and/or affective outcomes; and

The nature of play as a behaviorist, constructivist, or cognitive learning phenomenon.

Multimedia Treatment Intervention

The play intervention consisted of a course of interactive multimedia instruction titled

“Standard Naval Letter.” The purpose of this course is to teach Navy, Marine, Army, and Air

Force students the procedural steps to write a Standard Naval Letter according to guidelines pub-

lished in the Naval Correspondence Manual. Two versions of the course were created. Version

A contained the existing course along with an additional module of instructional play, and ver-

sion B contained the existing course along with an additional module of practice questions with-

out play characteristics. The hypothesis examined was that the treatment group receiving the

play module would score significantly higher on content and skill posttests than the comparison

16

groups, and that the treatment group receiving the play module would express higher enjoyment

ratings than those receiving the module without play characteristics.

Version A, which contained the play module given to the treatment group, was accessible

from the main menu or from a linear path through the courseware, and was sequenced so that it

is at the end of the instruction, but before the lesson test. Students were required to complete the

module. Although required participation violates a commonly defined characteristic of play –

that of voluntary or spontaneous action, it was necessary for testing purposes. The module was

based on a metaphoric spoof of the David Letterman show and contained a menu with three

branches: the Top Ten Ways to Mess Up a Standard Naval Letter, Stupid Letter Tricks, and

Celebrity Visit. In the Top Ten Ways to Mess Up a Standard Naval Letter, the most common

letter-writing and formatting mistakes (as identified by the CTA instructors) were portrayed tex-

tually and graphically as non-examples, with additional instruction showing students the correct

way to format the letter. Stupid Letter Tricks contained a silly series of five ways to use Stan-

dard Naval Letters in non-traditional ways. The Celebrity Visit contained an audio interview be-

tween David Letter-Man and the Navy Chief of the CTA School regarding common mistakes

made when writing Standard Naval Letters.

The inclusion of play was based upon Levy’s characteristics of playful behavior. Nov-

elty, incongruity, and surprisingness, as described by Levy (1978), were embedded to stimulate

the feeling of playfulness in the participants.

Coding Procedures

Interview data were recorded and later transcribed into a Microsoft Word rich text file

(.rtf) for incorporation into QSR NVivo. An analysis of major themes arising from the interview

data produced 23 codes, or categories of data, that could be used to identify indicators and per-

17

ceptions of play. The interview data were analyzed for common patterns or descriptions used

frequently by the participants to identify the indicators or elements as well as the ways play can

be used in learning. Using the automated coding feature, segments of interview data were then

selected and assigned a code (or codes). At times, multiple codes were assigned to a single pas-

sage of interview data. For example, one instructor defined play as “enjoyable social activity”;

this statement was coded in three ways: as enjoyment, activity, and social-dependent.

Quantitative Data

The quantitative analysis utilized a randomized posttest-only control group design with

random assignment into both the treatment and control groups. The primary dependent or re-

sponse variable to be measured consisted of the scores on three different summative measure-

ments. These three dependent variables were as follows:

a content knowledge test score, taken from the test embedded into the multimedia course,

a skill performance measure, taken from the job sheets completed by the students in the fol-

low-on lab.

a summated rating scale measuring enjoyment

The explanatory or independent variable was the additional play module attached to the existing

Standard Naval Letter multimedia course.

Instrumentation

The content knowledge test was an end-of-course test embedded in the Standard Naval

Letter course. Students completed it after finishing all lesson modules, including the Letter-Man

play module or the additional practice module, depending on the version they were given. This

test contained twelve questions that were comprehensive over the entire course. The question

format breakdown was as follows:

18

Five true-false questions

Six multiple choice questions

One interactive question (student must click on the incorrect letter component)

The courseware automatically calculated and reported a percentage score based on the number

correct.

The skill performance measure was referred to as a “job sheet” by the Navy instructors,

and provided a scenario in which a problem can only be solved by writing a Standard Naval Let-

ter. The students were given the basic information, including whom is writing the letter, who it

should be sent to, and other personnel involved. The student was required to read and compre-

hend the scenario and then construct a Standard Naval Letter with proper formatting. The Navy

instructors scored the letter and calculated a numerical score based on number of letter compo-

nents that were properly formatted. Ten points were subtracted for every error in formatting or

spelling.

The enjoyment scale was based on questions designed by Mihaly Csikszentmihayli (1990)

to measure flow. It is a summated rating scale that consists of 7 questions. This instrument was

analyzed to determine if enjoyment ratings were higher for either group. The validity of the

questions was established in previous research by Mihaly Csikszentmihayli, who used them to

measure “flow,” which is a form of enjoyment in which a person becomes engaged in a task so

much that time passes without notice (Csikszentmihayli, 1979). The questions on the scale were

summed and averaged to report group results for each participant. Group means were obtained

for each question and for the total scale.

19

Experimental Design and Data Analysis

The posttest only control group design was used to determine if the independent variable

(the multimedia play treatment) produced significant differences in the treatment group when

compared to the comparison group. Random assignment into groups equated the groups on ex-

traneous variables. A pretest was not used because of the possible sensitizing effect, in which

students respond to the posttest due to learning from the pretest rather than the treatment, which

can decrease the external validity of the experiment. In addition, the letter-writing content was

novel to these students, thus greatly diminishing the value of a pretest.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the mean scores of the treatment

and comparison groups to see if the difference was statistically significant. In other words, this

study sought to determine if the two groups were different after taking two different versions of

the Standard Naval Letter course. An alpha level of 0.05 or lower was the selected level of sig-

nificance necessary for the results to be considered significantly different.

Results of the Study

The first research question posed in this study described a need to identify the indicators

of play from three different perspectives: What are the indicators of play?

1. What are the indicators of play from a learner's perspective--how do they experience play?

2. What are the indicators of play from an instructor’s perspective?

3. What are the indicators of play from an instructional designer’s perspective--how do they de-

scribe the design of play?

The attempt to identify a common set of indicators was made because it was important to

the study of play and any future application of play as an instructional strategy. Common indica-

tors could form the basis of a play taxonomy, or a categorization of the kinds and levels of play

20

and how play can be designed to meet certain instructional outcomes in a controlled instructional

setting.

Prior to these interviews, a review of the literature was conducted. Sixteen research-

based indicators of play were identified through the literature review. Sixteen additional indica-

tors were identified through interviews that were not found in the literature. Cross-over did oc-

cur between some indicators found both in the literature in and interview data. Table 1.0 lists the

combined indicators and notes whether they were obtained from the literature review or the inter-

view data (gleaned from student, instructor, and designer interviews.) Indicators can best be un-

derstood as descriptors by which the presence of play was implied.

Table 1.0 Indicators of Play Derived from the Literature Review and Interview Data

Indicators derived from Literature Review

Indicators derived from Interviews

Self-generated Intrinsic MotivationPleasurableSense of Humor/FunJoy, EnjoymentExuberanceEmpowerment* Negotiation* Creative Risk-Taking* Non-literal what-ifs* ExploratorySpontaneousAbsorptionNon-workConstructive Illusion-IndividualConstructive Illusion-Group

* Indicators from the literature review that were not confirmed by interview data

StimulatingFocused AttentionSillinessRelaxedLack of boredomLack of anger/stressCompetitiveHelps knowledge acquisitionTimelessnessLocation-dependentSocially-dependentPerformanceBalanceTime on task/focusPlay instrumentsExpenseFidelity/simulation

21

Interestingly, six coded indicators occurred frequently across all interview groups and the

literature review. These indicators are noted below with the frequency of occurrence:

Sense of humor/fun (N=27)

Helps knowledge acquisition (N=27)

Socially-dependent (N=27)

Timelessness/flow (N=26)

Joy/enjoyment (N=17)

Lack of anger/stress (N=16)

Quantitative Results

As described in Chapter 2, previous research suggested that play can be an effective tool

for increasing procedural learning as well as learner enjoyment (Frost, 1992; Christie & Johnsen,

1983; Lieberman, 1977). This study used a mixed-method design to evaluate whether play, as an

instructional strategy, was more effective in helping participants in a treatment group acquire and

retain procedural information and increase enjoyment than those in a comparison group. Re-

search question two asked whether play impacts enjoyment for learning. Two subsequent hy-

potheses were proposed. Hypothesis one stated that play, used as an instructional strategy,

would aid participants in a treatment group to score higher on post-instruction tests than partici-

pants in a comparison group who received instruction that did not include play. Hypothesis two

stated that the participants in the treatment group would report greater enjoyment of the instruc-

tion than those in the comparison group.

Hypothesis One

The study of the effects of play on student performance was undertaken to investigate hy-

pothesis one, that play would aid participants in a treatment group to score higher on post-in-

22

struction tests than participants in a comparison group who received instruction that did not in-

clude play. Results of the effects of play on post-CBT measurements did not support this hy-

pothesis.

As an instructional strategy, play only showed a significant effect on the performance of

the participants on one of the 3 dependent variables (i.e. the CBT Test). In all cases, the mean

score of the comparison group was higher than the mean score of the treatment group, resulting

in an effect in an opposite direction from what was expected. This was a surprising finding.

As already mentioned, hypothesis one was not supported by the results of the study. One-

way analysis of variance was used to determine if the observed difference between the two group

means was statistically significant. The two different dependent variables used were the CBT

Test and the Letter-Writing Test. Table 2.0 contains these results.

Table 2.0 Results of the CBT and Letter-Writing Tests

CBT Test

Letter-Writing Test

Play Mean

72.9

-42.59

Non-Play Mean

81.3

-35.71

p-value

.008

.569

Examining the CBT Test, the Non-Play Comparison Group scored higher than the Play

Treatment Group (Non-Play Comparison Group, m=81.2571; Play Treatment Group,

m=72.9355). The p-value was below the selected alpha level of .05 (p=.008), so the differences

between the two groups was statistically significant. The mean scores are notable because the

comparison group obtained a higher mean score than the treatment group.

Examining the Letter-Writing Test, the Non-Play Comparison group scored higher than the

Play Treatment Group (Non-Play Comparison Group, m=-35.7143; Play Treatment Group, m=-

42.5862). The p-value was higher than .05 (p=.569), so the differences were not found to be sta-

23

tistically significant. Despite the lack of statistical significance, it is again notable that the com-

parison group obtained a higher mean score than the treatment group.

Hypothesis Two

The second hypothesis, which proposed that the treatment group would score significantly

higher on enjoyment of the instructional unit than the comparison group, was also not supported

by the results of the study. Statistical tests did not yield statistical significance at the alpha =.05

level, but further tests with more participants are recommended to determine if the play interven-

tion did not have any significant effect on enjoyment scores.

The internal reliability of the questions on the Enjoyment Scale was established by using

Crobach’s alpha coefficient. The summated rating scale had an alpha coefficient of .7983, which

indicates a fairly high degree of reliability for the scale. Students responded to the enjoyment

items with a Likert scale rating response.

All seven Enjoyment Scale questions were summed and averaged, and an independent

samples t-test was used to compare these averages. Again, the Non-Play Comparison Group

scored higher than the Play Treatment group (Non-Play Comparison Group, m=81.9118, Play

Treatment Group, m=77.0323). The p-value was greater than .05 (p=.106), so the difference was

not found to be significant. The questions in the scale were as follows:

1. I found myself challenged to optimal levels.

2. My attention was completely absorbed in this activity.

3. This module had clear goals.

4. This module had clear and consistent feedback and helped me to know if I was meeting the

right goals.

5. During the module, I felt free from worry or other distractions.

24

6. I felt completely in control of my learning.

7. Time passed without my notice.

In addition to the averages of the question answers, an independent samples T-test was

used for each of the seven Enjoyment Scale questions to determine if significant differences ex-

isted between the two groups in the study on the individual questions. Table 3.0 contains the

mean scores and p-values for each item by group, along with an identification of the item con-

tent.

Table 3.0 Group Means of Enjoyment Scale Items

Enjoyment Scale Item

Treatment Group Mean

Comparison Group Mean

Mean Difference (Treat-ment minus Comparison)

p-value

Item 1 challenge

3.4194 3.1471 .2723 .346

Item 2 attention

3.7097 3.8235 -.1138 .893

Item 3 clear goals

4.2258 4.5588 -.3333 .555

Item 4 clear feedback

4.0645 4.3824 -.3179 .644

Item 5 free from worry

3.7742 4.2647 -.4905 .471

Item 6 con-trol

3.9355 4.5882 -.6527 .518

Item 7 lack of time awareness

3.8387 4.1471 -.3084 .637

Composite Mean Scores

3.8534 4.1303 -.3555

25

Contribution to Instructional Design

The study of the effects of play on student performance was undertaken to investigate hy-

pothesis one, that play would aid participants in a treatment group to score higher on post-in-

struction tests than participants in a comparison group who received instruction that did not in-

clude play. In addition, the study was undertaken to address hypothesis two, that the participants

in the treatment group would report greater enjoyment of the instruction those in the comparison

group. As stated earlier, results of the effects of play on post-CBT measurements did not support

either hypothesis. However, one enjoyment scale item did reflect a higher mean score for the

treatment group than the comparison group – that of challenge.

The quantitative findings did not at all support the initial hypothesis, given that the com-

parison group – the one not receiving instruction with play – performed better on every measure

than the treatment group. Based on subsequent findings from the interview data, the conclusion

is that the initial design of the instructional strategies using play in the treatment group module

was flawed and did not adequately capture play into its instructional sequences. The play mod-

ule was designed as a metaphoric spoof of the David Letterman show. Levy’s (1978) character-

istics of play were used as a basis for design, and included novelty, surprisingness, and incon-

gruity. These characteristics were represented by the module’s reliance on surprising graphics

and audio, and by the complete incongruity between the lesson’s very dry presentation of Stan-

dard Naval Letter procedural formatting rules and the sudden change to the fun and entertaining

David Letter-Man module. On paper, my design followed the characteristics of play as docu-

mented in the literature.

Later analysis of interview data revealed that the key indicators of play, at least as de-

scribed by students, instructors, and instructional design practitioners, are not at all novelty, in-

26

congruity, and surprisingness, but instead are focused attention, a sense of timelessness, balance,

social dependence, joy/enjoyment, lack of anger and stress, and a sense of humor and fun. The

description of the module by the students as “fun” and “entertainment” is the lone descriptor

matching later interview data.

It appears that the design of the instructional strategies used in the Letterman module was

fatally flawed in relation to the attempt to stimulate play or playfulness among the participants.

Later interview data revealed specific indicators, elements, ways to use play, and expected re-

sults of play that could have been used to design instruction that better stimulated the occurrence

of play and created an instructional environment in which the subsequent effects of play could be

measured. If the design of the module had come after the qualitative portion of the study, the de-

sign would have been based on more reliable data and the subsequent measurements might have

resulted in different results. In fact, the indicators revealed by this study can easily be incorpo-

rated into the context analysis and needs assessment phases of design.

Table 4.0 W-I-R-E Indicators of Play

Way to Use Play (W)

Indicator of Play(I)

Result of Using Play(R)

Element of Play(E)

Edu-tainment Self-Generated Focused Attention RelaxedConstructive-Illu-sion, Individual

Intrinsic Motiva-tion

Lack of Boredom

Constructive-Illu-sion, Group

Stimulating Empowerment Lack of anger/stress

Play Instruments Pleasurable Helps Knowledge Acquisition

Location-Dependent

Fidelity/Simulation Sense of Humor / Fun

Timelessness / Flow

Socially-Dependent

Imitation Joy/Enjoyment Performance BalanceExuberance Time on task / fo-

cusSilliness ExpenseEntertainmentCompetitive

27

Non-literal what ifsSpontaneousNon-work / Goal-free

Upon further analysis, these indicators identified by the study can be partitioned further

into concepts more applicable for the creation of an instructional strategy involving play. The in-

dicators themselves naturally fall into categories more usable for strategy-building, such as inter-

nal indicators, environmental elements, ways to use play, and the results of using play. For ex-

ample, an internal indicator of play is intrinsic motivation; rather than being an instructional out-

come or effect, evidence that players are intrinsically motivated is an identifier that play is occur-

ring. Also, the concept of play as being dependent upon location or social engagement by others

may also indicate play, but is more appropriately described as an environmental element neces-

sary for play to occur. Additionally, constructive illusion may indicate the presence of play, but

is more specifically defined as a way to use play in a daydreaming, imaginative sense. Finally,

the concept of play as a means to promote knowledge acquisition says more about knowledge ac-

quisition as a potential result of using play rather than a leading indicator of the occurrence of

play. Thus, while the indicators do indeed indicate the presence of play, each can be further de-

fined into more useful concepts for application in instructional settings.

These categorizations can be summarized into an acronym titled W-I-R-E: W = ways to

use play, I = indicator of play, R = results of using play, E = elements necessary for play to oc -

cur. For example, the W-I-R-E categories provide a concise shell in which the indicators (“I”) of

play can be identified, the environmental elements (“E”) necessary for the stimulation of play

can be embedded, and the prescriptions or ways to use play (“W”) can be specified. Addition-

ally, this beginning model can also attempt to predict the possible results ("R" ) of using play.

28

After more specific testing under mul-

tiple learning outcomes and instructional con-

texts to prove its effectiveness, the W-I-R-E

model can be used in a more prescriptive

manner by instructional designers. Table 4.0

contains the list of W-I-R-E indicators.

For example, as a metaphor, this model can be used by instructional designers as a way to

“WIRE” their instruction with play, embedding elements into the environment that will stimulate

the indicators of play, while at the same time providing designers with specific tactics (ways) to

deliver instruction through play. In this way, the components of play are interwoven throughout

every aspect of instruction. Then, expected results can be predicted through this prescriptive ap-

proach.

In conclusion, the use of play within instruction is a viable practice for instructional de-

signers. Much research needs to be done regarding play as an overlooked component of instruc-

tional design and learning. Further study on the impact of play on learning is recommended, es-

pecially in the relationships of play and instructional strategies, conditions of learning, and inter-

active multimedia instruction. Additionally, research exploring environments in which play oc-

curs, as related to instruction, would be a welcome contribution to the field of instructional de-

sign.

29

Figure 1 T The W-I-R-E Model of Play

References

Agar, M.H. (1980). The professional stranger. An informal introduction to ethnography. New York: Academic Press.

Barell, J. (1980). Playgrounds of our minds. New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.Beach, F.A. (1945). Current concepts of play in animals. American Naturalist, 79, 523-541.Berlyne, D.E. ( 1968). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.)

Handbook of social psychology. New York: Addison-Wesley.Bodrova, El, & Leong, D.J. (1998). Adult influences on play. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen

(Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Bogdan, R.C., and Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: an introduction totheory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bowman, J. R. (1978). The organization of spontaneous adult play. In M. A. Salter (Ed.), Play:Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 239-250). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Briggs, L.J, & Wager, W.R. (1981). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bruce, T. (1993) The role of play in children's lives. Childhood Education, Summer, pp. 237-238.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press.Burns, S.M., and Brainerd, C.J. (1979). Effects of constructive and dramatic play on perspec-tive taking in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 512-521.

Cheska, A.T. (1978). The study of play from five anthropological perspectives. In M. A. Salter(Ed.), Play: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 17-35). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Cheska, A.T. (Ed.). (1979). Play as context. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.Christie, J.F., and Wardle, F. (1992) How much time is needed for play? Young Children, March, pp. 28-31.

Christie, J.F., and Johnsen, E.P. (1983). The role of play in social intellectual development Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-115

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Csikszentmihayli, M. (1979). The concept of flow. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and Lear-ning (pp. 257-274). New York, NY: Gardner Press.

Csikszentmihayli, M. (1979). Overview: Play or flow? In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and Learning (pp. 275-294). New York, NY: Gardner Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper& Row.

Craik, F.I.M., Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Dansky, J.L. (1980). Make-believe: a mediator of the relationship between play and associativefluency. Child Development, 51, 576-579

Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dinwiddie, S.A. (1993) Playing in the gutters: enhancing children's cognitive and social play.

30

Young Children, September, pp. 70-73.Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Implications for the design and delivery of

instruction. In Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. p. 170-198.

Ellis, M.J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall.Fein, G.G., & Wiltz, N.W. (1998). Play as children see it. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen

(Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond: context, perspectives, and meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Flake-Hobson, C., Skeen, P., and Robinson, B.E. (1982). Learning to read through play. Dimensions, July., pp. 103-105.

Fromberg, D.P., & Bergen, D. (Eds.). (1998). Play from birth to twelve and beyond: context,perspectives, and meanings. NY: Garland Publishing.

Gagne, R.M, Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Golumb, C., & Cornelius, C. (1977). Symbolic play and its cognitive significance.

Developmental Psychology, 13, 246-252.Gooler, D., & Stegman, C. (1994). A scenario of education in cyber city. Paper Presented to the

Japan-United States Teacher Education Consortium (JUSTEC) meeting, Hiroshima, Japan. Gordon, W.J.J. (1961). Synectics: the development of creative capacity. New York: Harper.Gredler, M. (1996). Educational games and simulations: a technology in search of a paradigm.

In Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technol-ogy, p. 521-540.

Guilmette, A. M., and Duthie, J.H. (1979). Play: a multiparadoxical phenomenon. In A. T.Cheska (Ed.), Play as Context (pp. 36-41). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Guilmette, A.M., & Duthie, J.H. (1982). Playing to grow and growing to play. In Loy, J.W.(Ed.), The Paradoxes of Play. New York: Leisure Press.

Gulick, L. H. (1972). Philosophy of play. New York: C. Scribner’s Son’s.Harris, J. C. (1979). Beyond Huizinga: relationships between play and culture. In A. T. Cheska

(Ed.), Play as Context (pp. 26-35). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.Herron, R.E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). Child’s play. New York: Wiley.Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In

Wilson, B.G. (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. p. 11-18.

Huizinga, J. (1955) Homo-ludens: a study of the play element in culture. Boston: BeaconPress.

Isenberg, J. (1998). Play among education professionals. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.),Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Isenberg, J, and Quisenberry, N.L. (1988) Play: a necessity for all children. Childhood Education February, pp 138-145.

Johnson, J.E., & Ershler, J. (1982). Sex differences in preschool play as a function of classroomprogram. In Loy, J.W. (Ed.), The Paradoxes of Play. New York: Leisure Press.

Johnson, R.B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282-292.

Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative

31

approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum. Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and

technology. NY: Macmillan.Jones, E. (1990). Playing is my job. Thrust for Educational Leadership, pp. 10-13.Jones, Marshall G. (1997). Learning to play; playing to learn: lessons learned from computer

games. [WWW document] URL http://intro.base.org/docs/mjgames/. Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: computer game design as a context for children’s learning.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world.

New Jersey: ErlbaumKerr, J.H., and Apter, M.J. (eds) (1991). Adult play: a reversal theory approach. Berwyn, PA:

Swets & Zeitlinger. LeCompte, M.D. & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational

research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Lentz, K. (1982) Mastery through play. Dimensions, April, pp. 68-71.Lepper, M.R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: conflicting views on the role of

motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20 (4), 217-230.

Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J., Reigeluth, C.M. (1992). ID strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Ed Tech Publications.

Levy, J. (1978). Play behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Lieberman, J.N. (1977) Playfulness: in relationship to imagination and creativity. New York,

NY: Academic Press.Linn, R.L, & Erickson, R. (1990). Quantitative methods, qualitative methods. Research in

Teaching and Learning, Volume 2. Macmillan Publishing, New York.Loy, J.W. (Ed.). (1982). The paradoxes of play. NY: Leisure Press.Manning, M.L, and Boals, B.M. In defense of play. Contemporary Education, 58 (4), Summer

1987, pp. 206-209.Merriam, S.B. (1993) An update on adult learning theory. New Directions for Continuing

Education, (57), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Merrill, M.D. (1997). Instructional strategies that teach. CBT Solutions, November/December,

1-11.Merrill, M.D. (1998). Knowledge analysis for effective instruction. CBT Solutions,

March/April, 1-11.Merrill, M.D. (2000). Instructional strategies and learning styles: which takes precedence? In

Reiser, R., and Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.) (In Press). Trends and issues in instructional technology. NY: Prentice Hall.

Miller, S.N. (1973). The playful, the crazy, and the nature of pretense. American Anthropological Association Meetings, New Orleans, LA.

Monighan-Nourot, P. , Scales, B., Van Hoorn, J and Almy, M.( 1987) Looking at children's play:a bridge between theory and practice. New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.

Morris, S.R. (1998). No learning by coercion: paidia and paideia in Platonic philosophy. In D.P.Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

32

Moyles, J (1994). Excellence of play. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Neuman, S.B., Roskos, K.. (1990) Play, print, and purpose: enriching play environments for

literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 44, (3), pp. 214-221.Papert, S Kafai, Y. (1996). A word for learning. In Constructionism in Practice: Designing,

Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, (eds) Yasmin Kafai, Mitchel Resnick. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. NewYork: Basic Books.

Papert, S. and Harel, I. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: issues and educational applications. In Papert & Harel (Eds.)., Constructionism: research reports and essays 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Papert, S. & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1994). Constructionism: research reports and essays 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Kafai & Resnick (Eds.). Designing, thinking, andlearning in a digital world. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Patton, M.M., and Mercer, J. (1996) Hey, where's the toys? Play and literacy in first grade. Childhood Education, Fall. pp. 10-16.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: SagePublications.

Paivio (1997). Dual coding theory [WWW document]. URLhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/paivio.html

Pellegrini, A., and Galda, L (1982). Effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the developmentof children's story comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 19, (3).

Pellegrini, A.D. (Ed.). (1995). Future of play theory: a multidisciplinary inquiry into thecontributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Perlmutter, J.C., and Burrell, L.(1995) Learning through "play" as well as "work" in the primarygrades. Young Children, July pp. 14-21

Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Post, D.L. (1978). Piaget’s theory of play: a review of the critical literature. In M. A. Salter

(Ed.), Play: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 36-41). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.Provenzo, E.F. (1998). Electronically mediated playscapes. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen

(Eds.), Play from Birth to Twelve and Beyond: Context, Perspectives, and Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Reigeluth, C.M.. (1983). ID theories and models: an overview of their current status. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rieber, L.P., Smith, L & Noah, D. (1988). The value of serious play. Educational Technology, Nov/Dec 98 pp 29-37.

Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments basedon the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, (2) pp. 43-58.

Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (2000). Trends and issues in instructional technology. NY: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, K.H., Maioni, T.L., and Hornung, M. (1976). Freeplay behaviors in middle and lowerclass preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47, 414-419.

Rubin, K.H., Watson, K.S., and Jambor, T.W. (1978). Freeplay behavior in preschool andkindergarten children. Child Development, 49, 534-536

33

Rubin, K.H., Fein, G. and Vandenburg, B. (1983). Play. in Handbook of child psychology:socialization, personality, and social development, 4, pp. 693-774

Saracho, O.N. (1986). Play and young children's learning. Today's Kindergarten.Sawyers, J.K., & Horm-Wingerd, D.M. (1993). Creative problem solving. . In Aronson, J.

(Eds.). Therapeutic Powers of Play, Northvale, NJ, pp. 81-105. Schwandt, T.A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In Denzin,

N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). Landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 221-259.

Schwartzman, H.B. (1982). Play and metaphor. In Loy, J.W. (Ed.), The Paradoxes of Play. New York: Leisure Press.

Seefeldt, C. (1985). Tomorrow's kindergarten: pleasure or pressure? Principal, May, pp10-15.Singer, J.L.(1973) The child's world of make-believe: experimental studies of make-believe play.

New York, NY: Academic Press.Stone, S.J. (1995/96). Integrating play into the curriculum. Childhood Education, Winter 95/96.

pp. 104-107.Stone, S.J.(1995) Wanted: advocates for play in the primary grades. Young Children, September,

pp. 45-54.Strother, D.B. editor (1992 Dec) Practical Applications of Research, Newsletter 5(2), pp. 1-4.

Phi Delta Kappan Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research. Bloomingon, Indiana.Sutton-Smith, B. (1979). Play and learning. New York, NY: Gardner Press.Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY:

HarperCollins.VanderVen, K. (1998). Play, proteus, and paradox: education for a chaotic and supersymmetric

world. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.)., Play from birth to twelve and beyond: context, perspectives, and meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

Van Patten, J., Chao, C. & Reigeluth, C.M . (1986). A review of strategies for sequencing andsynthesizing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 437-471.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1990). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Soviet Psychology, 28, p. 4-96.Wilson, B.G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional

design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Wolfe, C.R., Cummins, R.H., & Myers, C.A. (1998). Dabbling, discovery, and dragonflies:

scientific inquiry and exploratory representational play. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond: context, perspectives, and meanings. New York: Garland Publishing.

34