To appear in E. Zigler, S. Barnett, & W. Gilliam (Eds.) The preschool education debates.

The Great Balancing Act: Optimizing Core Curricula through Playful Pedagogy

Kathy Hirsh-PasekTemple University

Roberta Michnick GolinkoffUniversity of Delaware

December 4, 2009

This research was supported by Temple University’s Center for Re-Imagining Children’s Learning and Education that the authors co-direct, by NICHD grant 5R01HD050199;

NSF grant BCS-0642529; Spatial Intelligence Learning Center NSF SBE-0541957; NIH grant 1RC1HD0634970-01. Thanks to Kelly Fisher for reading earlier drafts of this paper

and for suggesting ways to make the piece stronger and Aimee Stahl for help with the bibliography.

The Great Balancing Act: Optimizing Core Curricula through Playful Pedagogy

The Capulets and Montagues of early childhood have long battled over their

vision for a perfect preschool education. Should young children be immersed in a core

curriculum replete with numbers and letters or in a playful context that stimulates

creative discovery? Cast as a feud, many have come to believe that the two approaches

are incompatible. It is, however, time for family allegiances to give way to empirical

findings. Playful learning offers one way to reframe the debate by nesting a rich core

curriculum within a playful pedagogy. The data are clear. Young children thrive in

settings with a strong curricular base that expose them to foundational skills that will be

learned in school. Research also suggests that they learn best through the kinds of

meaningful engagement and exploration found in play. Curricular goals need not

constrain pedagogical practices; children can learn and learn well in playful classrooms.

The Case for a Core Curriculum

There is no question that academic advancement is cumulative. The roots of

children’s competencies begin in infancy and early childhood. By way of example,

toddlers’ oral language skills not only predict how well they will communicate in school,

but also how well they will learn their A, B, Cs and understand written texts (NICHD,

Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Scarborough, 2001; Storch & Whitehurst,

2001; NELP Report, 2009; Dickinson & Freiberg, in press). Learning to count and to

master concepts related to numbers (big and small) are also critical to later mathematical

understanding and to flexible problem solving (Baroody & Dowker, 2003). Finally, a

bounty of research findings now link early social competencies to later academic

achievement (Raver, 2002). Training in emotion regulation that helps children control

2

their behavior and plan effectively is related to both academic outcomes and social gains

(Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007). These facts alone compel us to design

curricula for preschoolers that expose children to language, literacy, early number and

social skills.

The last three decades produced a wealth of empirical data that tell the same

story. Importantly, many of these studies have evaluated the short- and long-term effects

of preschool on disadvantaged children (Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal,

& Ramey, 2001; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002;

Campbell & Ramey, 1995; Schweinhart, 2004; Weikart, 1998; Reynolds, Ou, &

Topitzes, 2004; Zigler & Bishop-Josef, 2006). More recently, a large survey of 6

longitudinal data sets from Britain and the US examined precursors for school readiness.

Using meta-analyses, across literally thousands of children, they concluded that

mathematics, emergent literacy scores, and attentional skills were the best predictors of

later academic success. These results held for children from low and high socio-economic

niches and equally for boys and girls (Duncan et al., 2007). Thus, we not only know that

early education matters, but we are zeroing in on exactly the kinds of curricular goals that

will align preschool education with later primary school subjects.

Though we have made enormous progress in understanding precursors to several

academic outcomes in school (reading and math), warring factions still dominate the

question of how we should teach these and other competencies to our youngest citizens.

Worried about the discontinuity between preschool and elementary school pedagogy,

many early education curricula are taught using what Bowman (1999) referred to as

“traditional practices, which emphasize basic skills and whole-class, direct instruction,

3

even in preschool.” An Alliance for Childhood Report, Crisis in Kindergarten, released

in April of 2009, found that as these direct instruction methods gain traction, playtime is

being all but eliminated. Observing two hundred kindergarten classrooms in New York

and Los Angles, they find that 25% of the teachers in Los Angeles reported having no

time for play in their classrooms. What was replacing this activity? Test preparation! In

New York and Los Angeles, a whopping 80% of the teachers spend time each day in test

preparation. These findings are consistent with Elkind’s (2008) claim that children have

lost up to 8 hours a day of free play time over the last two decades and that 30,000

schools in the US have given up recess time to ensure that children have more time for

academic study. This reduction in playtime is a barometer for a much deeper debate in

our society about the value of play in children’s lives.

In this essay, we argue that the optimal preschool environment contains rich

content delivered in a playful, whole-child approach to learning. Using the best

available data as our foundation, we introduce the idea of guided play and suggest that

young children learn language, reading and mathematics as well or better when they have

a combination of free and purposeful play than they do when they are trained with

methods of direct instruction. Our argument is based on a set of well established learning

principles (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, & Singer, 2009) that illustrate how children

master academic and social competencies through play. Finally, we use these principles

to describe how looking at learning through play offers us a broader perspective on the

skill sets that young children must develop to be successful in school and in the global

world beyond the school walls. In short, the debate must no longer be about learning

versus play. Rather, we must think about curricula that stress learning via play. A whole-

4

child perspective enhances children’s social, academic, and creative development, allows

for accountability and can easily align with preK-3rd grade education (Bogard &

Takanishi, 2005).

Empty Vessels or Child Explorers and Discoverers?

The direct instruction approach to preschool curricula builds on a well-worn

metaphor of child development viewing children as empty pails to be filled with

information. Teachers become environmental agents, charged with “pouring in” facts as

children passively absorb information. In this view, children learn best via explicit

pedagogy. The notion of school readiness is often limited to cognitive learning (Stecher,

2002) and developmental dimensions like physical and motor growth, social skills, or the

range of skills and habits that enable children to learn in the classroom (such as the ability

to sustain attention) are often not addressed (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995; Kagan

& Lowenstein, 2004). Derived from a more behaviorist approach to learning, the empty

vessel metaphor often uses worksheets and memorization of facts and drill. Increasingly,

this kind of approach is being adopted to teach children emergent literacy skills like

letter-sound correspondence and vocabulary acquisition along with mathematical

competencies in counting (Miller & Almon, 2009). Undoubtedly, children can and do

learn in multiple ways, from both direct instruction and playful, guided learning (Datta,

McHalle, & Mitchell, 1976). However, research suggests that direct instruction often

leaves children feeling stressed and not liking school (e.g., Stipek, Feiler, Byler, Ryan,

Milburn, and Salmon, 1998).

The whole-child perspective is exemplified by a philosophical approach assuming

that the child brings much to the learning environment. Here teachers are guides.

5

Learning is not compartmentalized into separate domains and as all learning is

inextricably intertwined (Froebel, 1897; Piaget, 1970, among others). As Zigler (2007)

wrote,

The brain is an integrated instrument. To most people the brain means

intelligence. But the brain mediates emotional and social development. Emotions

and cognition are constantly interwoven in the lives of children (p. 10).

This view suggests that the whole child integrates cognitive and emotional

information in meaningful ways with the help of a rich environment and supportive

adults (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). This view presupposes that children seek meaning in all

they do and that through play they not only practice and hone their social skills but

engage in cognitive acts that expand their repertoires (Piaget, 1970). Play is a prominent

and integrative experience for young children in which they use both social and academic

skills. Thus, scientists like Roskos and Christie (2002, 2004), Zigler, Singer, and Bishop-

Josef (2004), and Singer, Golinkoff, and Hirsh-Pasek (2006) make compelling arguments

for the central role of play as a medium for promoting school readiness in a whole, active

child. In her review of the Abecedarian program (e.g., Campbell et al., 2001), the

High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart, 2004; Weikart, 1998) and the Chicago

Child-Parent Center Project (Reynolds et al., 2004), Galinsky (2006) noted that each of

these successful programs viewed children as active experiential learners using a

pedagogical approach that is aligned with playful learning.

What is Playful Learning?

Playful learning is a whole-child approach to education that includes both free

play and guided play – each of which is related to growth in academic and social

6

outcomes. Researchers generally agree that free play, whether with objects, fantasy and

make believe, or physical, is 1) pleasurable and enjoyable, 2) has no extrinsic goals, 3) is

spontaneous, 4) involves active engagement, 5) is generally all-engrossing, 6) often has a

private reality, 7) is non-literal, and 8) can contain a certain element of make-believe

(Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Garvey, 1977; Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003; Christie &

Johnsen, 1983). The merits of free play in early education have been well documented

(e.g., see Singer et al., 2006).

Guided play is distinct from free play. Here educators structure an environment

around a general curricular goal that is designed to stimulate children’s natural curiosity,

exploration, and play with learning-oriented objects/materials (Fein & Rivkin, 1986;

Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Marcon, 2002; Resnick, 1999; Schweinhart, 2004). Guided play

offers educational scaffolding in which adults enrich the environment in two ways. First,

they populate the child’s world with objects and toys that promote a variety of

developmentally appropriate learning experiences (Berger, 2008). A room filled with

books encourages children to explore print and a room with balance beams encourages

children to experiment (Siegler, 1996). Second, in guided play, teachers may enhance

children’s self discovery by commenting or asking open-ended questions about what

children are finding, thereby encouraging children to think beyond their own self-initiated

exploration. While guided play may appear to defy the play criterion of no external goal,

children continue to be the active drivers of learning. Learning is child-directed and not

adult controlled. Guided play is not direct instruction dressed in playful clothes.

Fisher (2009) identified two orthogonal continua that define guided play. The first

varies according to who initiates the learning: either the teacher or the child. In free play,

7

for example, the child determines what to explore. In direct instruction, the teacher

controls the agenda. The second dimension is loosely defined through the structure of the

learning experience. Free play is unstructured while direct instruction is a structured

learning experience. Under guided play, a teacher can have well formed curricular goals

but present them in ways that stimulate children’s discovery and engagement. This

mixture of goal-oriented experiences with whole-child learning offers a new alternative--

guided play -- that meshes core curricula and playful pedagogy.

Having described the model in the abstract, it is worth seeing how it might be

adopted in practice. A teacher may embed a variety of shapes in the free play area to

promote the exploration and learning of shapes in preschool. After initial free play

activities, the teacher asks children to play “Dora the Explorer” and find shapes. The

teacher may enrich conceptual understanding by asking children to compare their shapes

in a ‘show and tell’ activity.

To date, a number of studies have examined playful learning. The studies have

been observational, correlational, and have included strict random assignment

experimental settings. Furthermore, the research spans areas as diverse as cognitive and

academic learning and social development. The results are uniformly positive:

Children’s learning through free play and guided play is as good as, if not better, than

their learning under direct instructional methods. A review of the literature makes this

point (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009).

Free Play and Academic Outcomes

Through playful investigations, children develop rudimentary mathematic and

science concepts (Sarama & Clements, 2009a, 2009b; Tamis-LeMonda, Uzgiris, &

8

Bornstein, 2002). In one observational study, Ginsburg, Pappas, and Seo (2001) found

preschool children spend over half of their playtime in some form of mathematic or

science-related activity: 25% was spent examining pattern and shape, 13% on magnitude

comparisons, 12% focused on enumeration, 6% explored dynamic change, 5% compared

spatial relations (e.g., height, width, location), and 2% of the time was spent classifying

objects. Similar findings were evident in Siegler’s (1996) observation that those children

who played with a balance beam became experimenters who discovered the rules of

weight and balance.

Free play activities thus provide opportunities to explore, practice, and refine

early math and science skills. Children who engage in these activities with high

frequencies also show stronger academic gains (e.g. Ginsburg, Lee, & Boyd, 2008;

Wolfgang, Stannard, & Jones, 2003). Those participating in manipulative activities (e.g.,

block play, model building, carpentry) or playing with art materials do better in spatial

visualization, visual-motor coordination, and creative use of visual materials (e.g.,

Caldera, McDonald Culp, Truglio, Alvarez, & Huston, 1999; Hirsch, 1996; Wolfgang et

al., 2003).

A growing body of evidence suggests that free play also relates to the

development of language and literacy. Symbolic play, in particular, consists mostly of

enacted narratives that share vital aspects that underlie literacy, such as the identification

of characters, creation of a coherent story line, and the use of props and contextual

descriptions to foster a story-related reality (Dickinson, Cote, & Smith, 1993;

Nicolopoulou, McDowell, & Brockmeyer, 2006; Pellegrini & Galda, 1990). This kind of

play predicts language and reading readiness in kindergarten (Dickinson & Moreton,

9

1991; Dickinson & Tabors, 2001; Bergen & Mauer, 2000; Pellegrini & Galda, 1990).

Additional experimental research is necessary to isolate the specific elements of symbolic

play that promote different aspects of literacy development.

Guided Play and Academic Outcomes

A wealth of empirical data also shows that teachers can enrich learning through

children’s play by adding math- and literacy-related materials into school environments

(e.g., Christie & Enz, 1992; Christie & Roskos, 2006; Arnold, Fisher, Doctoroff, &

Dobbs, 2002; Griffin & Case, 1996; Griffin, Case, & Siegler, 1994; Einarsdottir, 2005;

Kavanaugh & Engel, 1998; Roskos & Christie, 2004; Saracho & Spodek, 2006; Stone &

Christie, 1996; Whyte & Bull, 2008). For example, Cook (2000) found preschool

children engaged in more talk and activities relating to mathematical concepts when

number symbols were embedded within play settings. Neuman and Roskos (1992) also

note that the incorporation of literacy props in preschoolers’ free play environments

increased literacy-related activities compared to a control group. Taken together, these

findings demonstrate how simple interventions that augment the academic content in free

play environments stimulates academic outcomes.

In the examples above, guided play takes the form of supplementing environments

that encourage children’s discovery. Teachers can also subtly structure play activities

(Singer, 2002) as they co-play with children, guiding them towards imaginary activities

and games that match with curricular goals (e.g., going on shopping trip and doing math).

Parent/teacher training programs designed to enhance learning-oriented co-play, for

example, enhance children’s imaginative play, pro-social skills, task persistence, positive

emotions, and academic skills (Singer, Singer, Plaskon, & Schweder, 2003). Thus,

10

guided play sparks enriched, meaningful learning experiences while still maintaining

children’s sense of curiosity, autonomy, choice, and challenge. Taken together, the

literature suggests that playful learning, in the form of both free play and guided play

leads to strong academic and social outcomes for children.

Long-Term Effects of Playful Pedagogies

The real measure of learning comes not only from immediate mastery of

information but also from long term retention and transfer. Here too, the evidence

suggests that playful learning is an important pedagogical tool. Marcon (1993; 1999;

2002), for example, compared three preschool models on a variety of academic,

behavioral, and social measures. Children in the child-initiated learning environments

showed superior social behaviors, fewer conduct disorders, enhanced academic

performance, and retention beyond children who experienced didactic, direct instruction

or mixed methods in sixth grade (didactic instruction and play-learning). Other

researchers have documented similar gains in social and academic development of child-

initiated learners over didactic learners (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, & DeWolf, 1993;

Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006).

Research on social outcomes of playful learning comes from the now classic High

Scope project (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997; Schweinhart, Weikart, & Larner, 1986).

By age 23, children who had attended play-based preschools were eight times less likely

to need treatment for emotional disturbances and three times less likely to be arrested for

committing a felony than those who went to preschools where direct instruction

prevailed. To paraphrase Schweinhart, High Scope’s director, direct instruction does not

cause these problems. Rather, not giving children the opportunity to develop socially is

11

the unintended side effect (Washington Post, November 21, 2009). In other words, social

problems arise when we fail to recognize that early education should be about the whole

child.

Why Does Playful Learning Work? Seven Developmental Principles

In 2009, Hirsh-Pasek et al. articulated 7 developmental principles that summarize

accumulated knowledge about how young children best learn. These same principles

appear in a series of now classic books (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Bowman, Donovan,

& Burns, 2001; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Berk, 2001; Zigler et al., 2004;

Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009), among others, and largely

reflect the developmentally appropriate practices espoused by the National Association

for the Education of Young Children (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Perhaps it is not

surprising that pedagogies consistent with these principles endorse a whole-child

approach and embrace playful learning rather than direct instruction:

1. All polices, programs, and products directed toward young children should be

sensitive to children’s developmental age and ability as defined through

research-based developmental trajectories. Developmental trajectories and

milestones are better construed through ranges and patterns of growth rather

than absolute ages.

2. Children are active, not passive, learners who acquire knowledge by

examining and exploring their environment

3. Children, as all humans, are fundamentally social beings who learn most

effectively in socially sensitive and responsive environments via their

interactions with caring adults and other children

12

4. Children learn best when their social and emotional needs are met and when

they learn life skills necessary for success. Self-regulation, flexibility and

compromise, and the ability to take the perspective of the other, are skills to

be nurtured.

5. Young children learn most effectively when information is embedded in

meaningful contexts that relate to their everyday lives rather than in artificial

contexts that foster rote learning.

6. The process of learning is as important as the outcome. Facilitating children’s

language, attentional skills, problem solving, flexible thinking, and self-

regulation is crucial to children’s academic success and to accountability.

Settings that promote these skills prepare confident, eager, engaged, and

lifelong learners.

7. Recognizing that children have diverse skills and needs as well as different

cultural and socio-economical backgrounds encourages respect for individual

differences and allows children to optimize their learning.

There is virtual consensus surrounding these principles of learning for children in

pre-K to 3rd grade (Bogard & Takanishi, 2005). Playful learning is one of the strong

characteristics of both the successful Tools of the Mind Curriculum (Diamond et al.,

2007) and of Montessori programs (Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). Playful learning also

encourages sensitivity and responsiveness in teachers -- characteristics that are hallmarks

of high quality programs (e.g., Galinsky, 2006). These 7 principles, based in

developmental and learning science, suggest that playful learning – not direct instruction

13

– will maximize children’s ability to learn and to transfer what they have learned as they

consider learning in a whole child.

Reaping the Benefits of Playful Learning

We have suggested that Pre-K to 3rd grade education would be best served by a

peace treaty between the educational Montagues and Capulets. Broad curricular goals

can be achieved using playful pedagogy and the scientific evidence is consistent with this

recommendation. Indeed, Copple and Bredekamp (2009) give us guidance on how we

might achieve this end. They write:

Education quality and outcomes would improve substantially if elementary

teachers incorporated the best of preschool’s emphases and practices (e.g.,

attention to the whole child; integrated, meaningful learning; parent engagement)

and if preschool teachers made more use of those elementary-grade practices that

are valuable for younger children, as well (e.g., robust content, attention to

learning progressions in curriculum and teaching) (p. 2).

Herein lies a partial recipe for achieving the great balancing act. Playful pedagogy offers

a model for how we can better prepare students to be lifelong learners who will enter a

world that is increasingly relying on global, socially sensitive and creative thinkers.

Research linking play with creative and flexible responses has been available for the past

40 years (Pellegrini, 2009).

Conclusion

Children in preschool today will be the work force in 2040. To best support them,

we must return play to childhood and ensure that as we add more content into our

preschool curricula, we commit to a playful learning pedagogy. Just when children need

14

to discover the pleasure of learning and the importance of taking the perspective of the

other, just when children should be maximizing their problem solving and creative

abilities, research suggests that direct instruction reduces children’s ability to adapt in

school, acquire crucial social and emotional skills, and respond to school’s demands

(Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). In contrast, when children have the opportunity to participate

in free play; to be treated as whole children with brains and hearts; and to experience

learning in a playful and engaging way, they learn and they thrive. Learning and play are

not incompatible. For young children, learning is best achieved via play.

15

References

Arnold, D., Fisher, P., Doctoroff, G., & Dobbs, J. (2002). Accelerating math development

in Head Start classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 762-770.

Baroody, A. J., & Dowker, A. (2003).  The development of arithmetic concepts and

skills:  Constructing adaptive expertise. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Studies on

mathematics thinking and learning.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bergen, D., & Mauer, D. (2000). Symbolic play, phonological awareness, and literacy

skills at three age levels. In K. A. Roskos & J. F. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy

in early childhood: Research from multiple perspectives (pp. 45-62). New York:

Erlbaum.

Berger, K. (2008). The developing person through childhood and adolescence (8th ed.).

New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Berk, L. E. (2001). Awakening children’s minds: How parents and teachers can make a

difference. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bogard, K., & Takanishi, R. (2005). PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to

education for children 3- to 8-years-old. Social Policy Report. XIX.

Bowman, B.T. (1999) Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics and technology

education a context for learning: Policy implications for math, science, and

technology in early childhood education. Retrieved on November 30, 2009 from

http://www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/online/context/bowman.htm

Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our young

preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

16

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn.

Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Brown, E. (2009, November 21). The playtime’s the thing: A debate over the value of

make-believe and other games in preschool classes is deepening as more states

fund programs. Washington Post, p. B01.

Burts, D.C., Hart, C.H., Charlesworth, R., & DeWolf, M. (1993). Developmental

appropriateness of kindergarten programs and academic outcomes in first grade.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8, 23-31.

Caldera, Y.M., McDonald Culp, A., Truglio, R.T., Alvarez, M., & Huston, A.C. (1999).

Children’s play preferences, construction play with blocks, and visual-spatial

skills: Are they related? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23,

855-872.

Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T.

(2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from

an early childhood education experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231–

242.

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk

African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early

intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743-772.

Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002).

Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project.

Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57.

17

Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy play interventions on

preschoolers' play patterns and literacy development. Early Education and

Development, 3, 205-220.

Christie, J., & Johnsen, E. (1983). The role of play in social-intellectual development.

Review of Educational Research, 53, 93-115.

Christie, J., & Roskos, K. (2006). Standards, science and the role of play in early literacy

education. In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.),

Play=Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and

social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cook, D. (2000). Voice practice: social and mathematical talk in imaginative play. Early

Child Development and Care, 162, 51-63.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in

Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 (Third

ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young

Children.

Datta, L.E., McHalle, C. & Mitchell, S. (1976). The effects of the Head Start classroom

experience on some aspects of child development: A summary report of national

evaluations, 1966-1969. Washington, DC: Office of Child Development.

Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program

improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.

Dickinson, D.K., Cote, L.R., & Smith, M.W. (1993). Learning vocabulary in preschool:

Social and discourse contexts affecting vocabulary growth. In W. Damon (Series

Ed.) & C. Daiute (Vol. Ed.), New directions in child development: The

18

development of literacy through social interaction (vol. 61, pp. 67-78). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dickinson, D., & Freiberg, J. (in press). Environmental factors affecting language

acquisition from birth – five: Implications for literacy development and

intervention efforts. In National Research Council (Eds.), The role of language in

school learning.

Dickinson, D., & Moreton, J. (1991, April). Predicting specific kindergarten literacy

skills from 3-year-olds’ preschool experiences. Paper presented at the biennial

meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.

Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language:

Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Duncan, G., Claessens, A., Huston, A., Pagani, L., Engel, M., Sexton, H., et al. (2007).

School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-

1446.

Einarsdottir, J. (2005). We can decide what to play! Children's perception of quality

in an Icelandic playschool. Early Education and Development, 16, 469-488.

Elkind, D. (2008). Can we play? Greater Good, 4, 14 -17.

Fein, G., & Rivkin, M. (1986). The young child at play: Reviews of research.

Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.

Fisher, K.R. (2009). ABC’s and 1..2..3: Exploring informal learning in early childhood.

Unpublished manuscript, Temple University.

Froebel, F. (1897). Pedagogics of the kindergarten. (J. Jarvis, Trans.). London: Appleton.

19

Galinsky, E. (2006). The economic benefits of high quality early childhood programs:

What makes the difference? Report for the Committee on Economic

Development. New York: Family and Work Institute.

Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ginsburg, H., Lee, J.S., & Boyd, J. (2008). Mathematics education for young children:

What it is and how to promote it. SRCD Social Policy Report: Giving Child and

Youth Development Knowledge Away, XXII.

Ginsburg, H., Pappas, S., & Seo, K. (2001). Everyday mathematical knowledge: Asking

young children what is developmentally appropriate. In S.L. Golbeck (Ed.),

Psychological perspectives on early childhood education: Reframing dilemmas in

research and practice (pp.181-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Griffin, S.A., & Case, R. (1996). Evaluating the breadth and depth of training effects,

when central conceptual structures are taught. In R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds.),

The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s

thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 83-

102.

Griffin, S.A., Case, R., & Siegler, R.S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central

conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk

for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive

theory and classroom practice (pp. 25-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hirsch, E. S. (1996). The block book (Third ed.). Washington, DC: National Association

for the Education of Young Children.

20

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2003). Einstein never used flashcards: How our

children really learn and why they need to play more and memorize less.

Emmaus: Rodale 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.

Kagan, S. L., & Lowenstein, A. E. (2004). School readiness and children’s play:

Contemporary oxymoron or compatible option? In E. F. Zigler, D. G., Singer, &

S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children’s play: The roots of reading (pp. 59-76).

Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.

Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (1995). Reconsidering children’s

early development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary.

National Education Goals Panel, Goal 1 Technical Planning Group. Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Kavanaugh, R.D., and Engel, S. (1998). The development of pretense and narrative in

early childhood. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on

play in early childhood education (pp. 80-99). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313,

1893-1894.

Marcon, R. (1993). Socioemotional versus academic emphasis: Impact on kindergartners'

development and achievement. Early Child Development and Care, 96, 81-91.

21

Marcon, R. (1999). Differential impact of preschool models on development and early

learning of inner-city children: A three cohort study. Developmental Psychology,

35, 358-375.

Marcon, R. (2002). Moving up the grades: Relationships between preschool model and

later school success. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4, 517–530.

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in

school. College Park, Maryland: Alliance for Childhood.

National Early Literacy Panel (2009). Developing early literacy. Jessup, MD: C.J.

Lonigan & T. Shanahan.

Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on

children’s literacy behaviors during play. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 203-

223.

Nicolopoulou, A., McDowell, J., & Brockmeyer, C. (2006). Narrative play and emergent

literacy: Storytelling and story-acting meet journal writing. In D. Singer, R.

Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Play=Learning: How play motivates and

enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 124-144). New

York: Oxford University Press.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of

oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-

442.

Pellegrini, A. (2009) Research and policy on children’s play. Child Development

Perspectives, 3, 131-136.

22

Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1990). Children’s play, language, and early literacy.

Topics in Language Disorders, 10, 76–88.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion

Press.

Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s

emotional development for early school readiness. SRCD Social Policy Report,

XVI, 3-18.

Resnick, L. B.  (1999, June 16). Making America smarter.  Education Week, pp. 3840.

Reynolds, A., Ou, S., & Topitzes, J.W. (2004) Paths of effects if early childhood

intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis

of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development, 75, 1299-1328.

Roskos, K., & Christie, J. F. (Eds.). (2002). Play and literacy in early childhood:

Research from multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roskos, K., & Christie, J. (2004). Examining the play-literacy interface: A critical review

and future directions. In E. F. Zigler, D. G. Singer, & S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.),

Children's play: Roots of reading (pp.95-123), Washington D.C.: Zero to Three

Press.

Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (2006). Young children’s literacy-related play. Early Child

Development and Care, 176, 707-721.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009a). Teaching math in the primary grades: The

learning trajectories approach. Young Children, 64, 63-65.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009b). Early childhood mathematics education

research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.

23

Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading

(dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson

(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford.

Schweinhart, L. (2004). The High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 40.

Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). Lasting differences: The High/Scope

Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study through age 23. Ypsilanti, MI:

High/Scope Press.

Schweinhart, L.J., Weikart, D., & Larner, M.B. (1986). Consequences of three preschool

curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 15-

45.

Shonkoff, J. & Phillips, D. (Ed). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of

early childhood development. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking.

New York: Oxford.

Singer, J.L. (2002). Cognitive and affective implications of imaginative play in

childhood. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Child and adolescent psychiatry: A comprehensive

textbook (Third ed., pp. 252-263). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

Singer, D. G., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (Eds.). (2006).  Play=Learning: How

play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth. 

New York:  Oxford University Press.

Singer, D., Singer, J., Plaskon, S., & Schweder, A. (2003). The role of play in the

preschool curriculum. In S. Olfman (Ed.), All work and no play: How

24

educational reforms are harming our preschoolers (pp. 43-70). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and

classroom practice. In L. S. Hamilton, S. P. Klein, & B. M. Stecher Rand (Eds.),

Making sense of test-based accountability in education (p. 79). Santa Monica,

CA: Rand Corporation.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Millburn, S., & Salmon, J. M. (1998). Good

beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young children

for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 41-66.

Stone, S. J., & Christie, J. F. (1996). Collaborative literacy learning during socio-

dramatic play in a multiage (K-2) primary classroom. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 10, 123-33.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2001). The role of family and home in the literacy

development of children from low-income backgrounds. In P. R. Britto & J.

Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), The role of family literacy environments in promoting young

children’s emerging literacy skills (pp. 53–71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S, Uzgiris, I. C., & Bornstein, M. (2002). Play in parent - child

interactions. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in

parenting (vol. 5, Second ed., pp. 221-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).

25

Weikart, D. P. (1998). Changing early childhood development through educational

intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27, 233–237.

Whyte, J.C., & Bull, R. (2008). Number games, magnitude representation, and basic

number skills in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 588-96.

Wolfgang, C.H., Stannard, L.L., & Jones, I. (2003). Advanced construction play with

LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in

mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 467-475.

Zigler, E. F. (2007). Giving intervention a head start: A conversation with Edward Zigler.

Educational Leadership, 65, 8-14.

Zigler, E. F., & Bishop-Josef, S. J. (2006). The cognitive child versus the whole child:

Lessons from 40 years of Head Start. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-

Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s

cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 15 -35). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Zigler, E., Singer, D., & Bishop-Josef, S. (Eds.) (2004). Children’s play: The roots of

reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.

26

27