Time to Play?

Playtime and Language DevelopmentJudy Hicks Paulick, PhD

“Four decades of research and practice offer unequivocal evidence for the critical importance of play for children’s development”(Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2006)

Play, Playful Learning, and DLLs

Study 1: The PLOT Study

Study 2: The Teacher Talk Study

Conclusions, Implications, and Future Research

Today’s Session

intrinsically motivating and child-directed (Levy, 1978)

pleasurable and exploratory (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 1988)

free from unnecessary constraints on time and engagement (Lillemyr, 2009)

Play is. . .

Play and language development

Elements of play are positively associated with language development

Relevant, authentic conversations and individualized talk [Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Snow, 1991]Uptake, repetition, and nuance [Clark, 2008; Nagy & Scott, 2000]

Play may be helpful for DLLs’ language development [Goldenberg, Hicks, & Lit, 2013]

Please chat with a colleague

•Why might playtime be particularly beneficial for DLLs?

•What challenges might we face in implementing policy that advocates for playtime in DLLs’ classrooms?

Playful Learning

(e.g. Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Singer, and Berk, 2011; Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, and Singer, 2009; Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, et al., 2013)

Playful Learnin

g

Playful Content Lessons

Ample Free

Choice Time

Playful Learni

ng

Playful Conten

t Lesson

s

Playful Learnin

g

Ample Free

Choice Time

Playful Learning

Playful Content Lessons

Ample Free

Choice Time

5 Categories, 24 Elements of Playful Learning Observation Tool

[PLOT]

Please chat with a colleague

How might the PLOT be updated, revised, or amended so it specifically addresses or targets DLLs?

inter-rater agreement (>85% in 4 of 16 classrooms)

internal consistency (alphas >.7 for each category)

convergent validity (significant correlations CLASS scores)

construct validity (tool sanctioned by playful learning theorist)

high correlations among aspects

Findings: Reliability/Validity of the PLOT

Distribution of Holistic Classroom Scores

2 3 4 5 6 7

PLOT Holistic Classroom Score [1-7 Scale]

Num

ber

of

Cla

ssro

om

s [N

=16

]

1

2

3

4

5

Range of Playful Learning Practice [7-point scale]

Findings: Range of Practice—Talk/Language

Research QuestionWhat is the amount, the sophistication, and what are the types of language that teachers are providing during higher and lower Playful Learning playtimes?

Recorded all teacher language for 6 sessions of playtime in each of the 4 focal classrooms across 3 months

Calculated:Words per minuteRare Words per minute

Coded for length and type of teacher/child interaction

Methods

Findings: Amount of Teacher Talk

Findings: Sophistication of Teacher Talk

Brief (1-3 teacher utterances)

Medium (4-8 teacher utterances)

Sustained (>8 teacher utterances)

Talk Interactions

Findings: Length of Talk Interactions

Direct

Question (close ended and no follow-up)

Inform

Discuss (teacher builds on child’s response)

Talk Interactions

Findings: Types of Talk Interactions

• Considerable variation in amount, sophistication, and type of talk.

• Higher playful learning playtimes include more language and more sophisticated language.

• In higher playful learning classrooms, there are more long interactions and more discussions.

It is conceivable that these differences may lead to differences in language development.

Summary of Findings for Study 2

Playful learning during free choice time is a construct that can be measured in reliable ways.

There is a considerable range of playful learning practice across classrooms.

That range of practice is associated with the amount, the sophistication, and the type of teacher talk.

Presumably, classrooms with (relevant and developmentally appropriate) discussions between teachers and children will be beneficial for DLLs.

Conclusions

More testing and refining of the PLOT instrument

Supporting the development of common understandings of free choice time

Supporting/developing teacher talk practices

Measuring child outcomes, particularly for DLLS

Working to maintain high quality free choice time for all children

Implications and Future Research

References

Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., Singer, D.G. Berk, L. (2011). Playing around in school: Implications for learning and educational policy. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of play. NY: Oxford University Press, 341-363.

Goldenberg, C., Hicks, J., & Lit, I. (2013). Teaching young English learners. In D. R. Reutzel (Ed.), Handbook of research-based practice in early education (pp. 145-160). NY: Guilford Press.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. Berk, L., & Singer, D. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1, 1-34.

Nagy, Z. & Scott, (2000). Vocabulary processing. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Questions?

Thank you for attending today’s

presentation

Presenter contact information:Judy Hicks Paulick

jrgh@stanford.edu

Focal Classroom Demographics

Hopkins, Moe, & Rush (1982) List of 309 Words that Made up 80% of First Graders’ Speech