Abstract
In the Asian continent, many Early Childhood Education (ECE) policies have been influenced by Western theories and pedagogies. An example is the widespread presence of the notion of play in curriculum policy frameworks, which in part responds to research findings originated in the West. However, given what we know about cross-cultural differences in child development and learning, it is imperative to examine the state of the art on play research conducted with Asian children. This chapter reviews the literature on the impact of play-based pedagogies in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan. We describe the types of studies conducted in these jurisdictions and their overall findings, with the aim of outlining future research agendas. We describe the socio-cultural beliefs about ECE in the selected contexts and the visions of play articulated in their official policies. Then, we provide an overview of the empirical studies available, distinguishing between naturalistic and intervention studies. Studies published in English academic journals have mainly analyzed the impact of structured and guided forms of play, focusing primarily on socio-emotional outcomes, with minimal research on domains such as scientific thinking, number sense, or creativity, and no research on other areas. We argue that the existing work reflects traditional Asian values and deep-rooted beliefs about ECE, where play is seen as a rather unimportant activity. We conclude that to better justify the inclusion of play in ECE policies across Asia, it would be vital to produce an extensive, rigorous, and locally situated corpus of play impact studies.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
As a result of glocalization, Early Childhood Education (ECE) policies in Asia might have been influenced by Western theories and pedagogies (Gupta, 2018; Yang & Li, 2019). One clear instance is the widespread presence of the notion of play in official curriculum guidelines, licensing and accreditation frameworks, and other high stakes policies, where play is commonly regarded as an essential strategy for child development and learning (Bautista, Yu, et al., 2021b; Grieshaber, 2016; Gupta, 2014). Following international trends (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2004; The LEGO Foundation & UNICEF, 2018), Asian ECE teachers are encouraged to implement play-based pedagogies that are child-centered and process-oriented, providing children with actively engaging, meaningful, socially interactive, and joyful learning opportunities. Environments that promote play, exploration, and hands-on experiences are understood to be the core of effective ECE programs across Asia (Bautista et al., 2019; Cheung et al., 2015; Fujisawa et al., 2008; Gupta, 2014).
However, research in support of the inclusion of play in ECE settings has been primarily conducted in Western societies (Lai et al., 2018). Given what we know about significant differences in many aspects of human psychology across cultures, and particularly about the unique characteristics of the Asian learner (King & Bernardo, 2016; Li, 2010), it is imperative to examine the state of the art on play research conducted with Asian children. In view of the lack of systematic reviews in Asia, this chapter brings together the available literature on the impact of play-based pedagogies across four specific Asian contexts: Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan. The chapter aims to describe the types of play impact studies conducted in these jurisdictions and their overall findings, as well as suggest future research agendas for play researchers within the Asian continent.
The chapter is structured into five sections. First, we provide a brief overview of Western research on play within ECE settings and its impact on children’s development and learning. The second section describes socio-cultural beliefs about ECE in the four Asian jurisdictions considered, as well as the visions of play articulated in their official curriculum policy frameworks. In the third section, we provide an overview of the research conducted in these regions to analyze the impact of play-based pedagogies on children’s developmental and/or learning outcomes, distinguishing between naturalistic and intervention studies. The fourth section critically analyzes the existing literature and identifies research gaps. Finally, the fifth section outlines future research agendas and discusses practical implications.
2 Western Research on Play and Its Impact on Children
Nowadays, official curriculum frameworks around the world (including Asian countries) suggest ECE teachers to implement different types of play-based pedagogies, in a continuum that ranges from structured play (activities led by teachers with educational purposes in mind) to free play (activities led by children and allowing them freedom, choice, and internal agency) (Bautista et al., 2019; Hassinger-Das et al., 2017). The emphasis on play reflects the theories and pedagogies developed by influential Western authors such as Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, Carl Jung, Friedrich Fröbel and Maria Montessori, who extensively wrote about the multiple manifestations of children’s play throughout the various developmental stages and/or educational levels. For example, Piaget (1962) argued that play reflects children’s stages of cognitive development, starting from functional play (allows children to master physical actions, with or without objects), constructive play (children use materials to make or build something), symbolic/fantasy play (children invent pretend scenarios where objects or toys are used as symbols representing something else), and finally games (activities with pre-established rules, normally involving competition among players). Numerous taxonomies and classifications of play types have been proposed by Western scholars (for reviews, see Burghardt, 2011; Johnson et al., 2005).
Furthermore, the adoption of play-based pedagogies in Asian ECE settings might reflect the extensive body of Western research documenting the positive impacts of play on children’s developmental and learning. Play impact studies in the West have utilized a variety of research methodologies (quantitative, mix-methods, qualitative) and have adopted a wide range of research designs (e.g., experimental, correlational, longitudinal, case studies). Moreover, Western scholars have documented the impact of play-based pedagogies on a variety of developmental and learning outcomes, including physical, cognitive, academic, socio-emotional, as well as mental health outcomes. For example, Western research has found a direct correlation between playful learning environments and reduced levels of obesity, heart-related problems, and chronic stress (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005). In a recent meta-analysis of 25 studies conducted in schools across Europe, Australia, United States of America (USA), Bedard et al. (2019) found that play-based and physically active classrooms may improve academic achievement and enjoyment outcomes, as compared to traditional teacher-directed schools. In a quasi-experimental study conducted in Norway with children aged 5–7, Fjortoft (2004) found that playing in a natural environment enhanced children’s physical fitness, coordination, balance and agility, as children were able to play and move in landscapes that offered challenge and unpredictability.
Another large body of Western literature shows that socio-emotional competencies are best nurtured through socio-dramatic and pretend play with peers and caring adults, and other social interactions in small group settings (Yogman et al., 2018). In the USA, Pellegrini et al. (2002) conducted a longitudinal study of children’s playground games, with emphasis on how play affected children’s social competence and adjustment to school. It was found that facility with games predicted boys’ social competence, and that play enhanced both boys’ and girls’ adjustment to the first year of Primary school. Finally, a large body of Western research has documented that cognitive and linguistic development are also optimized through active and exploratory forms of play (Fox et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2017a). Play enhances brain structure and promotes self-regulation and executive functioning (i.e, working memory, inhibition, shifting), which allow young children to pursue goals and ignore distractions (Diamond, 2013). Quinn et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature focusing on the relationship between symbolic play and language acquisition. Drawing on 35 studies conducted in Australia, United Kingdom, Finland, and USA, the authors identified a robust association between symbolic play and language development.
3 Societal Beliefs About ECE and Curriculum Policy Visions on Play in Selected Asian Contexts
While Asia is often seen by Western scholars as a homogenous whole, the various Asian countries have specific traditions and socio-cultural characteristics (e.g., values, norms, priorities, beliefs), varied conceptions about early childhood and child development, as well as different official discourses on the role of play in ECE (Bautista, Yu, et al., 2021b; Grieshaber, 2016; Gupta, 2014). Given the lack of review studies on play conducted in Asia, this chapter focuses on four specific contexts: Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan. These jurisdictions were selected due to the availability of (a) ECE policy frameworks written in English or Chinese and (b) published journal articles focusing on the impact of play-based pedagogies in young children.
Mainland China has a strong cultural tradition of placing emphasis on academic learning and achievement (Gopinathan & Lee, 2018; Li, 2010). Although this tradition is rooted in Confucianism, academic achievement in modern Chinese society is still regarded as a vehicle for social mobility. In his review on Chinese perceptions of early childhood, Luo et al. (2013) argued that this emphasis on the Confucian principle of knowledge (Zhi) has steered Chinese parents beliefs on learning away from avenues that entail high degrees of playfulness and enjoyment. The authors argued that other aspects of Confucian culture, in particular, the notion of Guan (i.e., Chinese term that means training children in the appropriate or expected behaviors) renders much of learning top-down and directed by adults. In this light, the ECE curriculum framework in Mainland China can be seen as somewhat revolutionary in its emphasis on the role of play in learning (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China [MOE-PRC], 2012). Indeed, the curriculum in China states that children’s learning should be derived from their “play and daily life” and that “we need to treasure the unique value of play” (p.2). This strong stance on the importance of play, in its own right, is tempered in other parts of the framework where play is referred to as a tool for academic learning. For instance, the curriculum suggests that teachers let children construct their play with materials in different shapes to learn shapes and play games like drawing circles to build a foundation for writing. Suggestions such as these reveal that play is, in fact, seen as vehicle to acquire academic knowledge and skills (Li et al., 2016).
Hong Kong and Singapore are highly developed and densely populated metropolises. Both are regional trading hubs with highly developed infrastructure and world leading educational systems. Although both cities have a predominately Chinese population and share a British colonial history, Singapore has a much larger proportion of non-Chinese in her population (~35%). Regarding parenting practices, Chinese parents in both Hong Kong and Singapore share the traditional Confucian values placed on academic achievement and tend to send their children for private tuition even before the commencement of primary school (Bull et al., 2018; Rao & Lau, 2018). In addition to cultural values, this behavior is also likely driven by parents’ concerns about their children’s readiness for primary education, which is often characterized as competitive and academic-oriented (Gopinathan & Lee, 2018).
Perhaps because of the immediacy of other cultures in Singapore society, the degree to which Singaporean Chinese holds on to traditional Confucian values also tends to be stronger than in Hong Kong. Although not likely an overt consideration in policy making, it is interesting to note the differences in how play is conceptualized in the curriculum frameworks of the two metropolises. Singapore’s curriculum advocates purposeful play, that is, play-based pedagogies that involve activities purposefully planned by ECE teachers to achieve intended learning goals (for example, educational games, blocks, puzzles) (Singapore Ministry of Education [MOE], 2013). In contrast, Hong Kong refers to free play in her official curriculum framework, emphasizing the importance of play in drawing on or cultivating children’s intrinsic motivation, autonomy, creativity, and freedom for exploration and curiosity (Curriculum Development Council [CDC], 2017).
Japan presents a very different case. In contrast to the three Chinese dominated societies examined thus far, the Japanese do not emphasize academic achievement before primary schooling. Rather, they emphasize the notion of mimamoru (i.e., teaching by watching and waiting), grounded in the belief of respecting children and giving children opportunities for taking up responsibility (Hayashi, 2011). Besides the hands-off approach, a key early childhood practice is group-based curriculum, which is thought to be beneficial for children’s socio-emotional development (Izumi-Taylor, 2013). Rather than having direct instruction as its main function, the Japanese believe that kindergartens serve to provide opportunities for children to interact and play with others who are outside of their family circle. Echoing these societal beliefs, Japan’s curriculum framework does not prescribe play for academic learning but instead focuses on the child-directed quality of play (Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT], 2008). The curriculum characterizes play as a voluntary and spontaneous activity enacted by children. Play is seen as a basic form of early childhood learning. Rather than a focus on learning outcomes, the role of the teachers is to prepare an appropriate environment that corresponds to the children’s play patterns and to facilitate children’s engagement and enjoyment (Fujisawa et al., 2008; Takahashi, 2016).
In sum, the four selected jurisdictions have both similarities and differences in their socio-cultural beliefs about early childhood. However, play is a central component of their official ECE curriculum policy frameworks (Bautista, Yu, et al., 2021b; Grieshaber, 2016; Gupta, 2014), although with differences in the specific play approaches that teachers are encouraged to facilitate, ranging from structured (teacher-led) to free (child-led) play (Hassinger-Das et al., 2017).
4 Reviewing the Asian Literature on the Impact of Play on Child Outcomes
The key research question addressed in this section is: Drawing on the available empirical research, what do we actually know about the impact of play-based pedagogies on children’s outcomes in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan? We conducted a literature search of empirical studies published up to May 2020, using the EBSCO research database. EBSCO is often used in similar review studies, given that it includes a large number of high-quality academic journals. Keywords in the search included the name of each individual Asian jurisdiction (e.g., Singapore, Japan), play, preschool OR kindergarten OR playschool, learning OR development OR outcomes, and child OR children. As this was the first systematic exploration of the topic, we decided to focus exclusively on peer-reviewed journal articles written in English.
A total of 16 articles were identified. We read the studies in detail and produced summaries highlighting the main findings. Table 21.1 presents descriptive information about the 16 articles, including publication year (ordered chronologically), jurisdiction where the study was conducted, study type, research approach employed, type of play investigated, and outcome(s) measured. Note that the category study type distinguished between naturalistic studies (i.e., those that explored the impact of play-based pedagogies on children within ECE programs) and intervention studies (i.e., those that employed controlled research designs to investigate specific outcomes of play-based pedagogies). The two following subsections further elaborate on the naturalistic and intervention studies identified, respectively.
4.1 Naturalistic Studies
Only five naturalistic studies were identified, one conducted in Hong Kong (Cheung et al., 2015), two in Singapore (Lee & Goh, 2012; Ng & Bull, 2018), and two in Japan (Fujisawa et al., 2008; Takahashi, 2016). They all showed that play-based pedagogies have the potential to positively impact specific aspects of Asian children’s socio-emotional development. Note that the five studies are qualitative and based on small, non-representative samples.
English journal publications in Hong Kong and Singapore have focused on investigating the effect of guided or structured forms of play on children, at the expense of free play which has been only investigated in Japan. In Hong Kong, Cheung et al. (2015) conducted a comparative case study in two contrasting preschools. In the academically focused preschool, learning activities were organized following teachers’ plans, with specified learning objectives; children were permitted to play in interest corners only after they finished the compulsory learning activities. In the play-based preschool, children were usually engaged in small-group activities and encouraged to choose their own activities, for example enjoying their time in a variety of interest corners freely. Social interaction and collaborative work among children were highly encouraged. A total of 60 4–5-year-old children (30 children from each preschool) were interviewed to understand their agency orientation. Cheung et al. (2015) found that children in the academically oriented preschool had more uncertain and less participative orientation than children in the play-based preschool. The authors argued that play-based pedagogies stimulated children’s capacities for agentive and participative social engagement, which in turn enhanced their chances to obtain versatile social skills. In contrast, the teacher-directed environment was more likely to undermine children’s capability in expressing their own ideas and inhibiting the opportunities for children to build interactive relationships with peers and teachers.
In Singapore, Lee and Goh (2012) undertook an action research project that examined how pretend play benefited children’s development and helped in their transition to primary school. Pretend play is a form of symbolic play where children use something (e.g., objects, actions ideas) to represent something else, and/or use their creativity to perform the role of imaginary characters (e.g., being superheroes, playing mummies and daddies). Children were observed as engaged in pretend play activities and comfortable to initiate activities, which echoed with newly learned knowledge. The authors concluded that young children’s cognitive and affective outcomes were supported during the pretend play activities, as they were exposed to multiple opportunities to apply the knowledge learned to solve real-life problems. Through systematic natural observations in six kindergartens, Ng and Bull (2018) explored the role of teacher-child interactions in outdoor play in supporting children’s social-emotional learning. The authors found that teachers provided most socio-emotional learning opportunities to children in outdoor play compared in the other three major types of learning activities (i.e., lesson time, mealtime/transition time, learning centers). During outdoor play, children were able to freely choose their activities (e.g., climbing equipment, playground play) and teachers were found to support children’s interactions with peers by relating, talking and playing with peers, which facilitated relationship management and social awareness and promoted children’s self-awareness and positive self-concept.
The two studies looking into the impact of free play were conducted in Japan. Fujisawa et al. (2008) investigated the reciprocity of prosocial behaviors among 3- and 4-year-old Japanese preschool children in the free play time. Two classes of 3-year-old children and two classes of 4-year-old children were observed during morning free play time for a school year. Each child was observed for 20 5-min focal observation sessions. The affiliative and prosocial behaviors occurring between the focal child and his/her peers were coded and the frequencies of each of the two types of behaviors were calculated. The results indicated positive correlations between given and received object offering and helping, as well as between the object offering and helping behaviors in the dyads. This indicated a reciprocity of prosocial behaviors during the free play time in Japanese preschool children. Findings suggest that children’s prosocial behaviors can be developed and supported in positive interactions with peers during free play. In an ethnographic study, Takahashi’s (2016) investigated how Japanese young children collectively constructed identities with peers in pretend play. A class with 25 children of 5 years of age in a local preschool in Japan was observed over 4 months with 8 h, 3 days a week. Based on the detailed analyses of children’s conversations and interactions, three characteristic forms of interaction during play were identified, as featuring children’s construction of pretend identifies: (1) Reciprocal immediacy; (2) Maintaining and challenging participation; and (3) Willingness and collaboration. The author argued that play is not only for fun but implies the deliberate process of working out the roles and rules between the playmates. As a result, children co-construct their pretend identities in play situations, which contributes to support their social-emotional development (Takahashi, 2016).
4.2 Intervention Studies
Intervention studies have examined the impact on children of play-based programs and/or identified the factors influencing their effectiveness. These have been more numerous than naturalistic studies, with one study conducted in Mainland China (Li et al., 2016), seven in Hong Kong (Cheung, 2018; Fung & Cheng, 2017; Hui et al., 2015; Leung, 2011, 2015; Liu et al., 2017b; Wang & Hung, 2010), and three in Singapore (Kok et al., 2002; Qu et al., 2015; Teo et al., 2017). We did not identify research of this nature in Japan, which could be interpreted as consistent with their curriculum vision of free or unguided play (MEXT, 2008). Compared to naturalistic studies, this research has been based on more rigorous research designs, including experimental and quasi-experimental designs, with the use of both quantitative and mix-methods analytical techniques. Play interventions have been rather short in terms of duration (e.g., eight weekly sessions), typically guided or facilitated by adults (e.g., ECE teachers, parent volunteers, researchers), and implemented as extra-curricular activities.
Similar to naturalistic studies, most interventions have targeted specific outcomes related to children’s socio-emotional development, with both educational and/or therapeutic purposes. For example, Liu et al. (2017a, b) showed that Hong Kong children’s social competence could be improved with a parent-guided eduplay intervention. The notion of eduplay (Rao & Li, 2009) is a hybrid between the Western idea of ‘playing to learn’ and the Chinese Confucian emphasis on achieving outcomes pre-determined by adults. The program designed by Liu et al. (2017a, b) involved eight 1-h weekly sessions. Children engaged in collaborative group games in a classroom setting, led by trained parent volunteers. Games focused on themes related to social situations such as lining up, gathering, and dispersing. While the children were participating in the games, there were two major roles for the parent volunteers: (1) decoding social cues for children, such as summarizing the positive manners demonstrated by children during the game; (2) reinforcing children’s prosocial behaviors, such as sharing and turns taking, with a star rewarding system and affirmative body language. After 8-weeks of intervention, assessed with The Early School Behavior Rating Scale (ESBRS), children’s enhancement in social competence was significant based on both teacher and parent reports. The effect of the play intervention was sustainable over 5 months and generalizable to both home and ECE settings. The authors further argued that recruiting parent volunteers as instructors in play-based interventions would enhance parents’ awareness and skills in facilitating children’s play. In this light, parents would likely continue providing children with play opportunities and would be able to better facilitate play activities in the future.
The other classroom interventions implemented were also short and involved pretend and socio-dramatic play, which have proven effective to enhance Singaporean children’s theory of mind (Qu et al., 2015) and to reduce Hong Kong children’s disruptive behaviors during peer interactions (Fung & Cheng, 2017). Furthermore, interventions designed with therapeutic purposes have found that guided forms of play contribute to reducing internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems in Hong Kong (Leung, 2011, 2015), increase time spent on social interactions in extremely shy children in Mainland China (Li et al., 2016), and enhance appropriate communication in children with autism in Singapore (Kok et al., 2002).
Beyond socio-emotional development, only three studies have analyzed the impact of play-based interventions on other child outcomes, specifically related to scientific thinking (Teo et al., 2017), creativity and problem-solving (Cheung, 2018), and mathematics (Wang & Hung, 2010). None of the intervention studies conducted in these four Asian contexts have focused on domains such as linguistic, physical, artistic, or spiritual/moral development. In the area of scientific thinking, the qualitative study by Teo et al. (2017) documented how a 90-min purposeful play session (facilitated by the researchers) allowed Singaporean children to expand their intuitive conceptions about floating and sinking. In a quasi-experimental study focusing on creativity and problem-solving, Cheung (2018) found that Hong Kong kindergarten children benefited more from a teacher-guided play approach than from a hands-off approach. In Hong Kong, Wang and Hung (2010) conducted a small-scale quasi-experimental study to examine the effect of teacher-designed boardgames on 5-year-old children’s number sense. Children in the intervention group showed better number sense after 8 weekly gameplays, especially in the domain of addition-subtraction. The authors concluded that play-based pedagogies facilitate curriculum innovation and pedagogical reform, allowing ECE teachers to gain flexibility to cope with the demands of Asian parents. However, note that the small sample size was insufficient for the authors to run inferential analysis. Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this math play-based intervention.
5 Discussion
The low number of play impact studies in these four Asian contexts may be due to multiple factors. First, despite the strong advocacy of play in official curriculum policy guidelines (CDC, 2017; MEXT, 2008; MOE, 2013; MOE-PRC, 2012), play-based pedagogy is still in its infancy in many parts of Asia. In fact, except for Japan, there is a large gap between the officially sanctioned perspectives on play and the observed practices on the ground, as extensively documented in classroom-based studies (Bautista, Yu, et al., 2021b; Grieshaber, 2016; Gupta, 2014). Playtime tends to be low within many ECE settings, and it is often used instrumentally to teach about academic learning areas (Bautista et al., 2019; Lam, 2018). Contextual constraints (e.g., lack of time and space) and cultural ideologies (e.g., lack of support from school leaders, parental pressures for academic learning) are other important factors that contribute to making it difficult for ECE teachers to embrace play-based pedagogies (Bull et al., 2018; Rao & Lau, 2018). In sum, the paucity of studies may be related to the availability of ECE settings where Asian children are consistently exposed to play-based pedagogies.
This thin body of literature could be also interpreted as a manifestation of traditional Asian values and of the deep-rooted beliefs about teaching and learning, especially within Chinese societies (Gopinathan & Lee, 2018), in which play is often seen as a rather unimportant activity. Indeed, the limited work on the effects of play on domains other than socio-emotional development may be due to the Confucian belief that play is an activity with little benefit for learning, specifically for academically related learning (Luo et al., 2013). Furthermore, consistent with traditional Chinese norms, researchers have clearly favored adult-guided forms of play, also referred to as eduplay (Rao & Li, 2009) or purposeful play (Bautista et al., 2019), characterized by high degree of teacher structure or control, the existence of given rules, and children’s lack of freedom to engage in these activities, mainly designed to achieve pre-determined outcomes. Interestingly, the essential ingredients of play (e.g., freedom, autonomy, choice, intrinsic motivation, free participation), as described by Western play theorists (e.g., Van Oers, 2013), are not visible in the studies reviewed in this chapter, except for the studies carried out in Japan.
6 Conclusion and Limitations
We conclude that Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have conducted little empirical research on the impact of play-based pedagogies on children’s development and learning. Taking peer-reviewed journal articles written in English as a reference, the volume of work is minimal, with only five naturalistic studies (none of them conducted in Mainland China) and 11 interventions (none of them conducted in Japan). Existing studies are small in scale, limited in scope, and often methodologically weak (i.e., short duration, focused on limited outcomes, small sample sizes, lack of control groups, lack of locally developed measures, limited generalizability).
Findings suggest that little research funding has been allocated to investigate the impact of play-based pedagogies on children in these four Asian jurisdictions. As a result of globalization in ECE (Gupta, 2018; Yang & Li, 2019), Western discourses pertaining to play seem to have been assumed as universally valid in these jurisdictions, where play-based pedagogies are recommended to teachers within ECE policies with little empirical evidence about their impact on local children (Bautista, Yu, et al., 2021b; Grieshaber, 2016; Gupta, 2014). However, we agree with J. Li (2010) in that “long-held Western assumptions about processes, efficacy, and effectiveness of learning cannot be readily applied to the study of learners from non-Western cultures” […] because these assumptions “were developed by Western researchers to study Western people based on Western cultural norms and values” (p. 42). In other words, what is known from Western research about how play impacts on Western children may or may not be applicable to children in other parts of the world, including Asia, as cultural contexts lead to significant differences in developmental and learning pathways (UNESCO, 2010). A given play-based pedagogy that is effective (and culturally appropriate) in the West may or may not be effective (or culturally appropriate) in the East (Bautista, Bull, et al., 2021a; Gupta, 2014).
One obvious limitation of this review is that we only included articles published in English. Nevertheless, compared to the vast volume of Western work in this area, it seems clear that there is a need for a more solid corpus of play-based research in these four Asian societies; research that takes into consideration their socio-cultural characteristics and the developmental pathways of local young children (King & Bernardo, 2016; Li, 2010). We propose future lines of research and implications in the following section.
7 Future Research and Implications
To better justify the inclusion of play and play-based pedagogies within Asian ECE curriculum frameworks, we claim it would be vital to conduct more rigorous and ambitious impact studies. Long-term longitudinal projects, which track children educated in various types of ECE settings (from academically oriented to play-based), are needed to understand the extent to which exposure to play in ECE makes a difference in the life of children (Cheung et al., 2015; Fung & Cheng, 2017). Consistent with the vision of holistic and balanced development (e.g., CDC, 2017; MOE, 2013), a wide range of outcomes should be investigated in these studies (e.g., physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, academic, mental health). Large-scale intervention studies, including randomized controlled trials, should be also undertaken to examine the benefits of specific play pedagogies within Asian ECE settings (Bull & Bautista, 2018; Cheung, 2018). In particular, it would be vital to examine the impact of different types of play in the continuum from structured (teacher-led) to free (child-led) play. As argued by Fung and Cheng (2017), studies on gender differences in response to diverse play approaches would be also desirable. Following the example of Western scholars, a wide range of research methodologies (quantitative, mix-methods, qualitative) and research designs (e.g., correlational, longitudinal, case studies) should be employed.
Developing this future research agenda would be vital not only to better justify the inclusion of play in curriculum frameworks, but also to influence (and eventually change) societal mindsets about the importance of play among Asian parents, who often prioritize academic work, discipline, and effort over other forms of learning (Lam, 2018; Rao & Li, 2009). An extensive, rigorous, and locally situated corpus of play impact studies would allow them to choose the best ECE for their children, within the frame of their respective cultural contexts (Bull et al., 2018; Rao & Lau, 2018; Yang & Li, 2019).
References
Bautista, A., Habib, M., Eng, A., & Bull, R. (2019). Purposeful play during learning center time: From curriculum to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(5), 715–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1611928
Bautista, A., Bull, R., Ng, E. L., & Lee, K. (2021a). “That’s just impossible in my kindergarten.” Advocating for ‘glocal’ early childhood curriculum frameworks. Policy Futures in Education, 19(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320956500
Bautista, A., Yu, J., Lee, K., & Sun, J. (2021b). Play in Asian preschools? Mapping a landscape of hindering factors. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 22(4), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491211058035
Bedard, C., St John, L., Bremer, E., Graham, J. D., & Cairney, J. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of physically active classrooms on educational and enjoyment outcomes in school age children. PLoS One, 14(6), e0218633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218633
Bull, R., & Bautista, A. (2018). A careful balancing act: Evolving and harmonizing a hybrid system of ECEC in Singapore. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage: Early childhood systems that Lead by example (pp. 155–181). Teachers College Press.
Bull, R., Bautista, A., Salleh, H., & Karuppiah, N. (2018). A case study of the Singapore early childhood education and care system. Evolving a harmonized hybrid system of ECEC: A careful balancing act. Teachers College Press. Report commissioned by USA National Center on education and the economy (NCEE). Retrieved from: ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/EA-Singapore-Case-Study-022819.pdf.
Burdette, H., & Whitaker, R. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 46–50.
Burghardt, G. M. (2011). Defining and recognizing play. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the development of play (pp. 9–18). Oxford University Press.
Cheung, R. (2018). Play-based creativity-fostering practices: The effects of different pedagogical approaches on the development of children’s creative thinking behaviours in a Chinese preschool classroom. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 26(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2018.1424725
Cheung, D., Reunamo, J., Cooper, P., Liu, K., & Vong, K.-i. P. (2015). Children’s agentive orientations in play-based and academically focused preschools in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1828–1844. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1028400
Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2017). Kindergarten education curriculum guide: Joyful learning through play, balanced development all the way. https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/major-level-of-edu/preprimary/ENG_KGECG_2017.pdf
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psycho-113011-143750
Fjortoft, I. (2004). Landscape and play: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21–44.
Fox, S. E., Levitt, P., & Nelson, C. A. (2010). How the timing and quality of early experiences influence the development of brain architecture. Child Development, 81(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01380.x
Fujisawa, K., Kutsukake, N., & Hasegawa, T. (2008). Reciprocity of prosocial behavior in Japanese preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407084055
Fung, W.-K., & Cheng, R. (2017). Effect of school pretend play on preschoolers’ social competence in peer interactions: Gender as a potential moderator. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0760-z
Gopinathan, S., & Lee, M. (2018). Excellence and equity in high performing education systems: Policy lessons from Singapore and Hong Kong. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41(2), 203–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1434043
Grieshaber, S. (2016). Play and policy in early childhood education in the Asia-Pacific region. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early CHildhood Education, 10, 7–28. https://doi.org/http://www.pecerajournal.com/?page=5&a=10753592
Gupta, A. (2014). Diverse early childhood education policies and practices. Voices and Images from five countries in Asia. Routledge.
Gupta, A. (2018). How neoliberal globalization is shaping early childhood education policies in India, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Policy Futures in Education, 16(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317715796
Hassinger-Das, B., Toub, T. S., Zosh, J. M., Michnick, J., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2017). More than just fun: A place for games in playful learning. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 40(2), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1292684
Hayashi, A. (2011). The Japanese hands-off approach to curriculum guidelines for early childhood education as a form of cultural practice. Asian-Pacific Journal of Research in early childhood education, 5(2), 107–123.
Hui, A. N., Chow, B., Chan, A., Chui, B., & Sam, C. (2015). Creativity in Hong Kong classrooms: Transition from a seriously formal pedagogy to informally playful learning. Education 3–13, 43(4), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1020652
Izumi-Taylor, S. (2013). Scaffolding in group-oriented: Japanese preschools. YC Young Children, 68(1), 70–75.
Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2008). Course of study for kindergarten. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retreived from https://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/07/1303755_002.pdf.
Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. U. (2005). Play, development, and early education. Pearson.
King, R., & Bernardo, A. (Eds.). (2016). The psychology of Asian learner: A festschrift in honor of David Watkins. Springer.
Kok, A., Kong, T. Y., & Bernard-Opitz, V. (2002). A comparison of the effects of structured play and facilitated play approaches on preschoolers with autism: A case study. Autism, 6(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361302006002005
Lai, N., Ang, T., Por, L., & Liew, C. (2018). The impact of play on child development: A literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(5), 625–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1522479
Lam, P. (2018). Bridging beliefs and practices: A study of Hong Kong kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of “learning through play” and the implementation of “play” in their practices. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Lee, S., & Goh, G. (2012). Action research to address the transition from kindergarten to primary school: Children’s authentic learning, construction play, and pretend play. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 14(1), 1–24.
Leung, C.-H. (2011). An experimental study of eduplay and social competence among preschool students in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 181(4), 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004431003611487
Leung, C.-H. (2015). Enhancing social competence and the child-teacher relationship using a child-centred play training model in Hong Kong preschools. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-014-0117-6
Li, J. (2010). Learning to self-perfect: Chinese beliefs about learning. In C. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner (pp. 35–69). Springer.
Li, Y., Coplan, R., Wang, Y., Yin, J., Zhu, J., Gao, Z., & Li, L. (2016). Preliminary evaluation of a social skills training and facilitated play early intervention programme for extremely shy young children in China. Infant and Child Development, 25(6), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1959
Liu, C., Solis, L., Jensen, H., Hopkins, E., Neale, D., Zosh, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Whitebread, D. (2017a). Neuroscience and learning through play: A review of the evidence. The LEGO Foundation.
Liu, S., Yuen, M., & Rao, N. (2017b). A play-based programme (pillars of society) to foster social skills of high-ability and average ability primary-one students in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 33(3), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429415581221
Luo, R., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Song, L. (2013). Chinese parents’ goals and practices in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.08.001
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE-PRC). (2012). Early learning and development guideline age 3–6. Retrieved from http://library.ttcdw.com/uploadfiles/wysztsg/1461663255.pdf
Ng, S.-C., & Bull, R. (2018). Facilitating social emotional learning in kindergarten classrooms: Situational factors and teachers’ strategies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 50(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-018-0225-9
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Starting strong: Curricula and pedagogies in early childhood education and care: Five curriculum outlines. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/31672150.pdf
Pellegrini, A., Kato, K., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). A short-term longitudinal study of children’s playground games across the first year of school: Implications for social competence and adjustment to school. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 991–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039004991
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Norton.
Qu, L., Shen, P., Chee, Y. Y., & Chen, L. (2015). Teachers’ theory-of-mind coaching and children’s executive function predict the training effect of sociodramatic play on children’s theory of mind. Social Development, 24(4), 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12116
Quinn, S., Donnelly, S., & Kidd, E. (2018). The relationship between symbolic play and language acquisition: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 49, 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.005
Rao, N., & Lau, C. (2018). Responsive policymaking and implementation: Enhancing quality and equity in Hong Kong’s ECEC system. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage 1—Early childhood systems that Lead by example (pp. 99–127). Teachers College Press.
Rao, N., & Li, H. (2009). “Eduplay”: Beliefs and practices related to play and learning in Chinese kindergartens. In I. Pramling-Samuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood settings (Vol. 1, pp. 97–116). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8498-0_5
Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE). (2013). Nurturing early learners: A curriculum for kindergartens in Singapore. Educators’ guide: Overview. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/preschool/files/nel-edu-guide-overview.pdf
Takahashi, M. (2016). Consumers at play: Negotiations of identity in a Japanese preschool. Young Consumers, 17(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-08-2015-00549
Teo, T.-W., Yan, Y.-K., & Ong, M. (2017). An investigation of Singapore preschool children’s emerging concepts of floating and sinking. Pedagogies, 12(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1374186
The LEGO Foundation & UNICEF. (2018). Learning through play. Strengthening learning through play in early childhood education programmes. Education section, Programme division. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2010). Culture and development. Evolution and prospects. UNESCO.
Van Oers, B. (2013). Is it play? Towards a reconceptualisation of role play from an activity theory perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 185–198.
Wang, Z., & Hung, L. (2010). Kindergarten children’s number sense development through board games. International Journal of Learning, 17(8), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i08/47181
Yang, W., & Li, H. (2019). Early childhood curriculum in the era of globalisation. Policies, practices, and prospects. Routledge.
Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics, 142(3), e20182058. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2058
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Central Reserve Fund at The Education University of Hong Kong, as part of the project “A multi-disciplinary research program in research on child development” (04A05). The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of their respective institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bautista, A., Yu, J., Lee, K., Sun, J. (2023). Impact of Play-Based Pedagogies in Selected Asian Contexts: What Do We Know and How to Move Forward?. In: Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Klassen, R.M. (eds) Effective Teaching Around the World . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31677-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31678-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)