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.

Table 21.1 Descriptive information about the 16 empirical research articles identified in the four Asian jurisdictions
Full size table

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).