Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum — TEI-tagged view

Jennifer M. ZoshpersName, Kathy Hirsh-PasekpersName, Emily J. HopkinspersName, Hanne JensenpersName, Claire LiupersName, Dave NealepersName, S. Lynneth SolispersName, David WhitebreadpersName (2018date). “Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum.” Frontiers in Psychologytitle·j.

Object of study —

Research question — how a spectrum definition of playterm·def can explain relationships between playful contexts and learning outcomes

Contribution — a multidimensional playterm·def spectrum and learning-mechanism account

Full text — tagged

The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.

Abstract. Abstract Defining playterm·def has plagued researchers and philosophers for years. From describing playterm·def as an inaccessible concept due to its complexity, to providing checklists of features, the field has struggled with how to conceptualize and operationalize “playterm·def.” This theoretical piece reviewsterm·mth the literature about both playterm·def and learning and suggests that by viewing playterm·def as a spectrum – that ranges from free playterm (no guidance or support) to guided playterm and games (including purposeful adult support while maintaining playful elements), we better capture the true essence of playterm·def and explain its relationship to learning. Insights from the Science of Learning allow us to better understand why playterm·def supports learning across social and academic domains. By changing the lens through which we conceptualize playterm·def, we account for previous findings in a cohesive way while also proposing new avenues of explorationterm·def for the field to study the role of learning through playterm·def across age and context. Keywords: playterm·def, playful learning, cognitive development, children, games, pedagogy The most irritating feature of playterm·def is not the perceptual incoherence, as such, but rather, that playterm·def taunts us with its inaccessibility. We feel that something is behind it all, but we do not know, or have forgotten how to see it. [scholar Robert Fagen (1981) as cited in Sutton-Smith, 1997 ]. Playterm·def is a roomy subject, broad in human experience, rich and various over time and place, and accommodating pursuits as diverse as peekaboo and party banter, sandlot baseball and contract bridge, scuba diving and Scrabble. Playterm·def welcomes opposites, too. Playterm·def can be free—ungoverned by anything more complicated than choosing which stick is best to improvise a light saber—or fixed and codified, as in those instances when soccer players submit to scrupulous “laws.” Playterm·def can take active or passive form and can be vicarious or engaging—and so we recognize playterm·def in both the spectator and the actor ( Eberle, 2014 , p. 214). Playterm·def is often defined as activity done for its own sake, characterized by means rather than ends (the process is more important than any end point or goal), flexibility (objects are put in new combinations or roles are acted out in new ways), and positive affect (children often smile, laugh, and say they enjoy it). These criteria contrast playterm·def with explorationterm·def (focused investigation as a child gets more familiar with a new toy or environment, that may then lead into playterm·def), work (which has a definite goal), and games (more organized activities in which there is some goal, typically winning the game) ( Smith and Pellegrini, 2013 ). For something so easy to observe, that occurs in monkeys, humans and even octopuses ( Burghardt, 2011 ), playterm·def has been notoriously difficult to define. An infant playing with vocalizations while engaged in primary interactions with his parent is engaged in playterm·def, as is a 7-year-old deeply focused on a game of checkers. Children can playterm·def by themselves or with a group of 15 others. The widely variable, inaccessible nature of playterm·def has not been lost on those writing on the topic. As the quotes above exemplify, playterm·def is complex. And a number of researchers have attempted an all-encompassing operational definition of the construct. For instance, Vygotsky (1967) stressed that, through sociodramatic playterm·def in particular, both children’s cognitive development and higher mental functions (e.g., inhibition) are strengthened as they navigate through the playterm·def situation and operate within the zone of proximal development (see Bodrova and Leong, 2015 for a reviewterm·mth). Piaget (1962) , however, focused on playterm·def for its own sake and conceptualized playterm·def as the way that children assimilated the external world to match their own concepts rather than to learn something new. Stuart Brown (2010) argues that playterm·def is evolutionary and has the following properties: apparently purposeless/done for its own sake, voluntary, inherent attraction, freedom from time, diminished consciousness of self, improvisational potential, and continuation desire. Gray (2013) also provides a list of features to describe playterm·def, with some overlap. His conceptualization maintains that playterm·def (1) is directed and chosen by the child, (2) is as an activity in which the focus is not the end-state or a goal, but the means themselves, (3) consists of structure that comes from the minds of the players and not external constraints, (4) is imaginative and separate from real life and, (5) involves mental, non-stressed activity. Garvey (1990) joins in with a list of characteristics that has been widely cited suggesting that playterm·def is pleasurable, with no extrinsic goals, spontaneous and voluntary, involves engagement on the part of the player, and also that it is related to other cognitive and social functions that exist outside of playterm·def. Similarly, Smith and Pellegrini (2013) suggest that playterm·def is activity that is done with no extrinsic goal with the focus being the playterm·def itself, is flexible, and involves positive affect. They separate playterm·def from explorationterm·def and games. Weisberg et al. (2013) used previous research ( Garvey, 1990 ; Sutton-Smith, 1997 ; Johnson et al., 1999 ; Hirsh-PasekpersName and Golinkoff, 2003 ; Hirsh-PasekpersName et al., 2009 ; Pellegrini, 2009 ; Burghardt, 2011 ; Fisher et al., 2011 ) to suggest four criteria that emerge in the flood of definitions to demarcate whether or not an activity is playterm·def. Playterm·def (1) has to have no specific purpose nor be linked to survival, (2) can oftentimes be exaggerated – e.g., playful experiences often are not necessarily related to how things work in regular, everyday life, (3) requires both joyfulterm·def and voluntary participation, and (4) is child-led, not adult-directed. Though it is easy to find the overlap, these should not mask key points of disagreement, especially when it comes to the purpose of playterm·def and the role of structure or scaffolding from others. For example, the idea that playterm·def requires that there is no goal, suggests that children playing a pretend playterm·def scenario that was crafted to build vocabulary is not playterm·def, even if the children are leading their explorationterm·def and having fun pretending to be at a grocery store. It suggests that children playing a board game are not really playing. Further, child-directed playterm·def would lose its cache as playterm·def if adults suggested that the children become explorers who hunted down magic bugs in the backyard. These conceptual differences lead to definitional confusion within the fields of education and developmental psychology. The criterial features of playterm·def are hard to pin down. In this piece, we suggest a reason why discussions of playterm·def are often vague and conclude that broad definitions of the construct are too encompassing and as such, void of the nuance that this field demands. Rather than holding to one set of criteria, it might be better to conceptualize playterm·def as unfolding along a spectrum, or continuum, that ranges from free playterm, captured in definitions provided by Garvey (1990) , Pellegrini (2009) , Stuart Brown (2010) , and Weisberg et al. (2013) , to forms of playterm·def that are none-the-less child directed but that have inherent goals like guided playterm, and games ( Hassinger-Das et al., 2017 ). Defining playterm·def as a continuum might also allow us to better specify not only the types of playterm·def, but the outcomes that emerge from each genre. For example, free playterm, with no extrinsic goal, might prove optimal for social development whereas guided playterm, in which adults take supportive (rather than leading) roles in service of a learning goal is repeatedly demonstrated to be effective for more academic types of learning. Here we attempt to chart a definition of playterm·def that allows us to capture the Playterm·def Spectrum and thus to make more refined hypotheses about how playterm·def relates to varied aspects of development – from traditional academic outcomes to the newer conceptualizations of skills needed for 21st century success [e.g., Golinkoff and Hirsh-PasekpersName’s (2016) 6C’s: collaboration, communication, content, critical thinking, creative innovation, and confidence]. Thinking about playterm·def as a spectrum enables us to retain a playterm·def essence where children experience joy and have agency in their playterm·def contexts while also recognizing that playterm·def may take many different forms and serve many different functions. We acknowledge that while there is little disagreement in the function of playterm·def as an avenue for social interactionterm and enjoyment, there is disagreement about the functions of playterm·def for learning. Here, we first reviewterm·mth the range of experiences that would fall along our proposed playterm·def continuum, taking a more bird’s eye view of the literature while suggesting that this more nuanced view provides cohesion amongst seemingly contradictory views of playterm·def. Then, we will use evidence generated from the Science of Learning, a multi-disciplinary approach that seeks to characterize how learning occurs and is supported through lessons learned across education, machine learning, linguistics, cognitive science, neurobiology, psychology, and other fields ( Bransford et al., 1999 ) to spotlight guided playterm as a context that clearly demonstrates learning through playterm·def, but would not technically fit the global definition of playterm·def by Pellegrini and others. Finally, we end with the suggestion that a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of playterm·def allows the field to better understand findings to date about playterm·def and learning and generate new hypotheses moving forward. A More Nuanced Definition of Playterm·def Free playterm, in which adults do not guide or scaffold, and in which there is no goal, is often hailed as the gold standard of playterm·def and is the focus of most of the traditional definitions we mentioned above ( Gray, 2013 ). During free playterm, the child initiates and directs playterm·def. This happens when children sit in front of a mountain of building blocks that are not designed to build a particular outcome, or when children construct a fort in the living room. There is no pre-determined learning goal. There is a large body of research on how this type of playterm·def may benefit children and lead to positive developmental outcomes. But this laser-focus on one type of playterm·def prevented scholars and researchers from examining a wider range of experiences that are adult-scaffolded but remain playful in essence. We argue that one can begin to add more specificity and nuance to the definition of playterm·def by imagining free playterm as one end of a spectrum (see Figure 1 ). In effect, we attempt to answer the call of Pyle et al. (2017) for “a need to move away from a binary stance regarding playterm·def and toward an integration of perspectives and practices, with different types of playterm·def perceived as complementary rather than incompatible” (p. 311). In free playterm, the child initiates the playterm·def context and also directs the playterm·def within that context. In contrast, if the adult chooses or arranges a context for learning, but the child directs the playterm·def within that context, we have guided playterm. Guided playterm can take the form of an adult playing with a child and offering scaffolding and guidance or an adult setting up a space or activity in such a way as to provide support as a child playsterm·def on their own (e.g., games). Children’s museums are an excellent example of the latter (see Sobel and Jipson, 2016 for a reviewterm·mth). Guided playterm differs from free playterm in two ways: an adult helps to structure the activity, and the activity is centered around a learning goal. Critically, however, the child must still retain agency to direct the activity. FIGURE 1 Playterm·def conceptualized as a spectrum captures playful experiences that differ along a continuum in terms of initiation and direction of the experience and whether or not there is a learning goal. If a child initiates a context for playterm·def and then an adult intervenes to direct the playterm·def within that context, we enter co-opted playterm, not guided playterm. The child might have been interested in building a circus out of blocks, yet the well-intentioned parent swept in to declare that the animals were at the zoo, redirecting the child’s vision and robbing her of some agency in the playterm·def experience. When adults initiate and direct using playful elements, the scene more closely resembles direct instructionterm – even if it is dressed up in playful “clothing.” Habgood and Ainsworth (2011) cite Bruckman’s (1999) term of “chocolate covered broccoli.” Here a well-meaning adult decides that today, her child is learning about shapes and that she will be sure that she keeps the child on task by arranging the different shapes, counting sides, encouraging the child to place the blocks in appropriately shaped holes, and misses the opportunity to go on a “shape hunt” around the house. The idea that discovery-based, active learning might prove a powerful pedagogical approach has been discussed for some time (e.g., Hirsh-PasekpersName et al., 2009 ; Bonawitz et al., 2011 ). Alfieri et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 164 studies and found that assisted discovery methods (those similar in nature to guided playterm in which adults support but children lead) resulted in the best learning outcomes (in domains as varied as: math, computer skills, science, physical/motor, and verbal and social skills) when compared to either free playterm or direct instructionterm. Research over the last few decades (see Hirsh-PasekpersName et al., 2015 for a reviewterm·mth) has repeatedly shown that learning is optimized when adults scaffold an environment or feedback toward a learning goal but the learning environment encourages fun child-led explorationterm·def and discovery. The expansion of our definition of playterm·def to include guided playterm widens the range of contexts and topic areas where playterm·def might have a beneficial impact on learning. Research in the past has found that free playterm was less effective in academic settings than direct instructionterm ( Pianta et al., 2009 ; Fuller et al., 2017 ), but that does not mean that playful learning has no place in education. Rather, guided playterm, with its adult support and focus on particular learning goal, may offer an optimal pedagogical approach in academic contexts. In domains ranging from STEM [spatial thinking ( Fisher et al., 2013 )] to literacy ( Han et al., 2010 ; Nicolopoulou et al., 2015 ; Hassinger-Das et al., 2016 ; Cavanaugh et al., 2017 ; Toub et al., 2018 ), children perform better in guided playterm than in free playterm and equal to or better than in direct instructionterm (though see Jirout and Klahr, 2012 ). Even studies of causal reasoning in infancy echo this idea. Work by Sim and Xu (2015) finds that 19-month-old toddlers are more likely to figure out what caused a machine to activate and to generalize that causal information in a guided, but not free playterm, condition. Lessons From the Science of Learning Why Guided Playterm Primes Learning In 2015, several of the authors of this piece suggested that the science of learning – a newly minted amalgamation of research in psychology, education, neuroscience, machine learning, linguistics and others – has reached some consensus on features that comprise optimal learning environments ( Hirsh-PasekpersName et al., 2015 ). Though first presented in the context of app use with education goals, the features that optimize learning processes are context general rather than task specific. In this piece, it was suggested that children learn best when the learning is active (minds-on) and engaged (not distracting), meaningful (applied to prior knowledge and transferred to the outside world), and occurring in a socially interactive environment. Two additional characteristics of learning in playful contexts may also help explain why this pedagogical approach increases educational value: the joy and iterationterm that are inherent in playterm·def. Joy, or positive affect, has been linked to increased executive functions and academic outcomes (see Diamond, 2014 for a reviewterm·mth) and even brain flexibility ( Betzel et al., 2017 ). Iterationterm, or the mindful construction of new knowledge based on hypothesis testing and revising one’s own knowledge over time, is a hallmark of learning and playterm·def ( Piaget, 1962 ). Each of these characteristics is supported by the learning literature and is inherent in playful learning contexts. It is important to note that these characteristics align with learning across the playterm·def spectrum – from supporting the development of executive functions through free playterm ( Elias and Berk, 2002 ) to the development of mathematics when playing games and engaging in guided playterm and/or explorationterm·def (see Ginsburg, 2009 for a reviewterm·mth; e.g., Siegler and Ramani, 2008 ; DeCaro and Rittle-Johnson, 2012 ; ZoshpersName et al., 2016 ). However, different types of playterm·def will embody the characteristics to different extents, which will then lead to different benefits for learning and other outcomes. For example, free playterm with friends may be high on joy and social interactionterm, which could lead to the development of socio-emotional skills. In contrast, guided discovery learning at a science museum may be high on iterationterm and meaning-making, which could support STEM learning. We argue that guided playterm particularly harnesses active, minds-on thinking, engagement, meaning-making, joy, and iterationterm more so than other types of playterm·def, which helps it maximize learning, particularly for academic skills. Active “Minds-On” The study of early cognitive development centers on the idea that children playterm·def active roles in the construction of knowledge (e.g., Piaget, 1962 ). The activity, here though, that is crucial is that of mental activity – the active manipulation and processing of information rather than observation or rote responding. Active learning – where people are focused and engaged and where they are making decisions about the flow of incoming information – always outpaces passive learning where the information presented is merely meant to be absorbed. There is a rich and growing literature in this area. While teaching new information directly may seem as if it has the advantage of being efficient, it may discourage further discovery, deeper processing, and ultimately, learning – leaving some researchers to dub this phenomenon the “double-edged sword” of pedagogy. Bonawitz et al. (2011) offer an excellent example of the power of active mental manipulation for learning. In their study, children were given the opportunity to playterm·def with and learn from a novel toy that had a number of non-obvious functions. In one condition, a knowledgeable adult demonstrated a subset of those functions and then children were allowed to playterm·def with the toy. In this case, children passively watched the knowledgeable adult and then were given the opportunity to playterm·def with and learn from the toy. In another condition, a non-knowledgeable adult “accidentally” demonstrated a hidden function, inspiring an active mindset for the children, and children were then again allowed to explore as they saw fit. Children in the first condition were less likely than children in the second condition to explore the toy and discover its additional features. Inspiring minds-on thinking led to discovery and learning. Yang and Shafto (2017) find computational evidence that this type of discovery-based, active learning is especially important when the teacher and learner have different assumptions and knowledge. In other direct comparisons, ZoshpersName et al. (2013) compared toddlers’ word learning when they were directly told the meaning of a novel word versus one in which they used process of elimination to determine the referent of a novel word. Even though the toddlers looked longer at the referent of the novel word in the first condition, they demonstrated greater retention of the novel label when they had to engage in the active processing task. Fisher et al. (2013) contrasted children’s ability to learn the identifying information for shapes (e.g., a triangle is any shape that has three connected sides regardless of whether they are symmetrical or not. It is not merely a shape with a point at the top). Four and five-year olds were shown examples of various triangles and asked to discover the secret of how they were related. Much like the word-learning example of ZoshpersName et al. (2013) , children who had to discover the information for themselves had better immediate and long-term (1 week later) retention of this information than children who were directly told. As noted in the introduction, some researchers (e.g., Pellegrini) separate explorationterm·def from playterm·def. Here, we conceptualize explorationterm·def as minds-on thinking, either in playful or non-playful contexts. Explorationterm·def on its own does not make a context playful, but playful explorationterm·def represents minds-on-thinking in an enjoyable and child-directed context, and as such can help support learning. This is one reason that playterm·def in general, and guided playterm in particular, is so effective. Active, minds-on thinking is intrinsic to playterm·def. When coupled with guidance toward a learning goal, in a playful setting, such as in guided playterm, it is more likely for children to be minds-on with the information that adults hope that they learn and this is more likely to be retained than information shared in more passive contexts. Engagement Although being “minds on” is an important first step, staying “minds on” is crucial for learning. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest challenges that children face: Their ability to resist distraction and stay on task develops over childhood. Ruff and Lawson (1990) examined children’s sustained, focused attention during free playterm in childhood and found that children’s ability to maintain focused attention increased over the first 5 years. Kannass and Colombo (2007) found similar results in a comparison of children’s susceptibility to distraction between 3 to 4 years old. Further, children vary greatly in their susceptibility to distraction ( Choudhury and Gorman, 2000 ; Dixon et al., 2006 ) and attention in earlier childhood is related to attention problems later in childhood ( Martin et al., 2012 ). Even simple things such as pop-up books ( Tare et al., 2010 ), instrumental music ( Barr et al., 2010 ), and decorated classrooms ( Fisher et al., 2014 ) distract young children and interfere with their learning. But crucially, susceptibility to distraction is, to some degree, malleable ( Kannass et al., 2010 ; Neville et al., 2013 ). Though playterm·def is often characterized as being a context with an absence of constraints, playterm·def naturally requires children to stay on-task, to balance their own wants with those of their social partners, and in the cases of pretend, to inhibit distractions from the immediate environment that conflict with the playterm·def narrative. As such, make-believe playterm·def has been linked to increased self-regulation ability but more data is necessary (see Berk and Meyers, 2013 for a reviewterm·mth). For example, preschoolers who exhibited more socio-dramatic playterm·def early in the year showed increased self-regulation abilities later in the academic year ( Elias and Berk, 2002 ). In a recent intervention study, Thibodeau et al. (2016) investigated the impact of a 5-week play-based intervention with preschoolers and found that those children who were in a fantastical pretend-play condition showed increased gains in executive function relative to children in a non-imaginative playterm·def condition or a business-as-usual control. This again speaks to the importance of a nuanced conceptualization of playterm·def. Not all playterm·def is created equal. Guided playterm in particular, where an adult scaffolds a situation toward a specific learning goal, may be especially helpful at maximizing engagement, particularly for younger children who are more susceptible to distraction. Meaningful Meaningful informationterm·def is that which is relevant, connected to something familiar, and able to be transferred to new situations or problems. For example, there is a difference between memorizing the fact that a triangle has three sides versus understanding that the pizza slices, tortilla chips, and sailboat sails in the real world resemble triangles. The challenge of meaning-making is the work of the early years. Even a young child who, on the surface, knows the count list does not necessarily understand the principle of cardinality – this true knowledge unfolds over time ( Wynn, 1990 ; Sarnecka and Carey, 2008 ). That is, knowing the word “three” is not synonymous with an understanding that the word “three” maps onto (or indicates) the quantity of three objects, and that sets of three things can come in diverse sets of things as varied as cups or books. A child might know that she is supposed to share toys with her brother because her mother has told her to, but not understand the reasons why (that her brother also wants to playterm·def with the toys and will be upset if he cannot). Similarly, being able to recognize the printed alphabet letters does not directly relate to the phonological awareness that is necessary for reading ( Blair and Savage, 2006 ). The distinction between surface and deeper learning has a long history in the scientific literature. From Einstein’s statement “ The value of an education … is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks ” to Ausubel’s (1968) distinction between rote versus meaningful learningterm, the idea that learning goes beyond basic content or knowledge to transferable, generalizable, deeper thought continues today. Shuell (1990) adds to this idea by stating that rote learning (e.g., knowing the count list or being able to recite the alphabet) is a precursor to “real” learning (e.g., having true numerical knowledge or being able to read) and this is expanded even more by Chi (2009) who emphasizes the use of previous knowledge to help actively construct new knowledge for conceptual change. Deeper learning in number or vocabulary requires that the learner not only store information, but also connect it to prior information (see Hadley and Dickinson, 2018 , for an example in vocabulary development). Comparing multiple examples and drawing analogies between situations and systems are some of the most powerful learning mechanisms available to young children. For example, children tend to rely on superficial surface properties when comparing objects unless they are given multiple examples. Seeing multiple examples prompts children to compare and examine the features that are common to each ( Gentner and Namy, 1999 ). Making analogies between situations can also lead to new insights about problem-solving (e.g., Holyoak et al., 1984 ; Brown et al., 1986 , 1989 ; Daehler and Chen, 1993 ; Chen, 1996 ) understanding scientific principles (e.g., Ganea et al., 2011 ; Kelemen et al., 2014 ; Shtulman et al., 2016 ), or learning moral lessons (see Mares and Woodard, 2005 for a reviewterm·mth). When children playterm·def, they choose themes, objects, and people that are relevant and interesting to them. Thus, they are motivated to make meaning out of the information in their playterm·def. Guided playterm or games can teach effectively by presenting information that is contextualized in ways that make sense to children. In one study, Habgood and Ainsworth (2011) created two versions of an educational computer game. In one version, 7- to 11-year-old children had to use an understanding of division to “divide” zombies and defeat them. In another version, children defeated the zombies using standard game methods, and then solved division problems at the end of each level. When the information about division and factors was made meaningful within the game, it led to better learning: Children who played the integrated version of the game outperformed the other group on a division test 2 weeks later. Guided playterm may particularly support this type of meaning making because young children may struggle to do it on their own. Mares and Acosta (2008) found that kindergarteners who watched a story about dogs who befriended another dog with a missing leg tended to draw the very narrow lesson to “be kind to three-legged dogs,” rather than the broader moral lesson about accepting people who are different. However, children learn more from reading a book when a parent or other adult asks questions that encourage connecting the story to their existing knowledge – a process known as dialogic reading (e.g., Hargrave and Sénéchal, 2000 ). For example, the reader might ask children to think about how a character might be feeling or point out how an element in the story is similar to something from the child’s own life. Thus, adults can help scaffold children to make connections between new information and what they already know, thereby helping to make the new information more meaningful and supporting learning. This type of meaning-making supports learning in more informal, play-based contexts as well. For example, research in children’s museums suggests that instructing caregivers to ask questions such as “why?” helps children to learn more from their experience ( Benjamin et al., 2010 ) and studies investigating how to increase learning pinpoint that scaffolding is crucial ( Wolf and Wood, 2012 ; see Andre et al., 2017 for a reviewterm·mth), especially to taking the learning beyond the museum. Guided playterm harnesses the power of children’s own agency and discovery but couples it with the adult-supported scaffolding that maximizes learning through meaning-making. Socially Interactive Although children can playterm·def on their own, they also frequently playterm·def with parents, siblings, friends, or classmates. Playing with others also adds social meaning to the activity at hand. Chi (2009) describes how peer interactions can involve “building on each other’s contribution, defending and arguing a position, challenging and criticizing each other on the same concept or point, asking and answering each other’s questions” (p. 83). Through these processes, the two individuals each contribute to the conversation in such a way that it helps construct new shared knowledge. Indeed, it has been suggested that the sharing of information between individuals acts as a type of “natural pedagogy” ( Csibra and Gergely, 2009 , p. 148), in other words, social interactionterm is, in itself, a mechanism for learning. Entire theories are centered around the role and importance of social partners not just for learning but for lifetime attainment of things such as independence, self-worth, and fulfillment (e.g., Vygotsky, 1967 ). Perhaps nowhere is this more important than in infancy and early childhood, and infants seem to be born looking for this interaction (e.g., Meltzoff and Moore, 1983 ). Infants and children prioritize input and learn more from social cues compared to non-social presentations of the same information [e.g., a human arm versus a robotic arm ( Wu et al., 2011 ); a face or a flashing cue ( Wu and Kirkham, 2010 ), and even a communicative point versus non-communicative reaching ( Yoon et al., 2008 )]. Social interactionterm in infancy and childhood centers around interactions with parents/caregivers and peers 1 . Both have been shown to be important resources for children. Parents and/or caregivers are an infant’s initial social partner, and the quality of this early caregiver-infant relationship has been linked to many different positive outcomes. For example, a parent’s contingent responses to a child’s vocal playterm·def support language development (see Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2014 and Reed et al., 2016 for reviewsterm·mth). Recent work suggests that direct gaze sharing between a parent and infant promotes neural connectivity and communication bidirectionally ( Leong et al., 2017 ). Parent/child interaction can also promote healthy socioemotional regulation critical for academic achievement and can even serve as a protective factor against the negative physical and cognitive effects of stress (see Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2016 for a reviewterm·mth; Nelson et al., 2014 ; Nelson, 2017 ). Playterm·def encourages social interactionterm for young children in a number of ways. Playing with peers has been shown to support learning. For example, Ramani (2012) found that children built larger, more complicated structures when they were engaged with a peer in a playful building activity compared to when they were presented with the same materials in an adult-directed and adult-structured activity. Similarly, social interactionterm among preschoolers was related to increased complexity of building with blocks ( Trawick-Smith et al., 2017 ). Although Park and Lee (2015) suggest that one of the advantages of working with a peer is benefiting from a higher-ability peer or one with higher social skills, even the illusion of working collaboratively has positive effects. Preschoolers who were told they were collaboratively working on a puzzle with a child in the next room persisted longer on the task and reported liking it more compared to children who knew they were working alone or were told that they were taking turns ( Butler and Walton, 2013 ). And crucially, children seem to be rather discerning and take into account the knowledge and reliability of their social partners ( Bonawitz and Shafto, 2016 ). While free playterm has traditionally been recognized as optimal for promoting social interactionterm, even in playterm·def with peers, it is important for adults to scaffold and protect the playful peer interaction ( Ghafouri and Wien, 2005 ) as even young children are susceptible to social loafing ( Arterberry et al., 2007 ), bullying ( Kirves and Sajaniemi, 2012 ), and exclusion ( Fanger et al., 2012 ), suggesting that guided playterm may have a role in the development of positive social skills. It is important to note that the presence of social interactionterm does not necessarily make a situation playful. Teachers using didactic methods to instruct a class can be interacting with a class that is devoid of any playterm·def. Further, and on the opposite side, children can engage in solo playterm·def that is joyfulterm·def and child directed, but that is not social at all. We suggest here that playful pedagogies are effective because they often harness the power of high quality social interactionterm, in combination with the other characteristics outlined here (joy, active thinking, engagement, meaningful, and iterative) to support learning 2 . Iterative Acquiring knowledge requires more than the deposit of facts from the more educated into the less educated; instead, learning is similar to the scientific process. As Piaget (1964) notes: Knowledge is not a copy of reality. To know an object, to know an event, is not simply to look at it and make a mental copy or image of it. To know an object is to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the process of this transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the object is constructed. (p. 176) To learn, even young infants, or, as Gopnik et al. (1999) called them, the “scientists in the crib,” engage in the process of generating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and then using the generated data to inform one’s own understanding. In other words, they construct the knowledge using the methods described by Piaget. Learning requires that knowledge generation is an iterative processterm·def in which a child uses what he or she knows to generate new hypotheses, tests those hypotheses using minds-on thinking, and updates his or her understanding based on those tests. A striking example of this comes from decades of research examining young infants’ reasoning about physical objects and relationships finding that even young infants have expectations about what objects can and cannot do, but they revise this knowledge over infancy and it becomes more accurate and nuanced as they acquire additional experience (see Baillargeon, 2004 for a reviewterm·mth; Wang et al., 2016 ; Baillargeon and DeJong, 2017 ). Indeed, children explore more when violations of their expectations occur (e.g., Schulz and Bonawitz, 2007 ; van Schijndel et al., 2015 ). In Stahl and Feigenson (2015) , researchers presented 11-month-old infants with visual presentations in which expectations about normal objects were violated (e.g., an object passed through a solid surface or an object seemingly blipped out of existence) and compared their immediate learning to presentations in which there were no violations of expectations. The infants who observed an object appear to violate physical laws were more likely to learn about a hidden property of the object, and they spent more time exploring the objects. They even appeared to test out the apparent violation; for example, children who observed an object appear to pass through a solid wall spent more time banging it on surfaces than children who did not witness the violation. Preschoolers will preferentially explore a toy characterized by confounded evidence over toys without ambiguity ( Schulz and Bonawitz, 2007 ). Thus, not only do young infants generate rules based on evidence but they actively seek to revise these rules over time. Playterm·def inspires iterationterm. Guided playterm, in particular, can be described as “constrained tinkeringterm” where, within a bounded explorationterm·def space, children have the freedom to test out different hypotheses. Unlike more direct instructionterm contexts in which active explorationterm·def and discovery are often thwarted, playful contexts encourage explorationterm·def and discovery as a focus. For example, in one study, children were more likely to playterm·def with a toy when the causal structure of the toy (i.e., which lever caused a toy to pop up) was ambiguous than when it was clearly demonstrated to them ( Schulz and Bonawitz, 2007 ; see also Cook et al., 2011 ; Buchsbaum et al., 2012 ). Pretend playterm·def also invites iterative processing as children must not only keep in mind conceptual premises that exist outside of reality but also adapt to changing circumstances as the playterm·def session continues (e.g., Harris and Kavanaugh, 1993 ; Weisberg and Gopnik, 2013 ). As with the other characteristics, iterationterm alone is not a necessary feature for playterm·def. Yet, playterm·def often inspires iterationterm. And although all types of playterm·def may inspire simple iterationterm, some adult support in the form of guided playterm may be necessary for more advanced types of hypothesis testing, such as those involved in higher scientific thinking (e.g., generating hypothesis about what variables cause a particular effect and testing those hypotheses in the midst of confounding variables). Research has found that children are not very good at designing appropriate experiments on their own (e.g., Klahr et al., 1993 ), but can do so in a child-directed and fun way if offered some adult guidance (see Lazonder and Harmsen, 2016 for a meta-analysis). Joyfulterm·def Joy is an essential element of playterm·def: Early scientific writings on playterm·def mention “positive affect” and “intrinsic motivationterm” as defining features of what makes an activity playful ( Krasnor and Pepler, 1980 ). Joy is inherent, and required, for an activity to be considered playterm·def. Even in the most constrained definitions of playterm·def cited above, joy is a central characteristic. The idea that positive affect influences cognition is not new ( Isen, 1984 ). Ashby et al. (1999) proposed a neuropsychological theory relating positive affect to both long-term and working memory as well as creativity in problem solving. Indeed, positive affect is linked to increased creativity ( Isen et al., 1987 ), and creative thinking is linked to increased learning ( Resnick, 2007 ; ZoshpersName et al., 2017 ). The idea that emotions and cognition are linked is only growing in popularity. Fischer and Bidell (2006) highlight the dynamic nature of development, with emotion and cognition as “two sides of the same coin as characteristics of control systems for human activity. Emotion is together with cognition at the center of mind and activity.” (p. 370). Recent research in psychology and neuroscience furthers supports this idea ( Immordino-Yang and Damasio, 2007 ). In fact, an entire field of psychology touts its benefits for a variety of positive outcomes, including learning ( Seligman, 2002 ). Positive affect is not the only aspect of joy implicated in learning. Surprise also seems to playterm·def a role in increasing curiosity and explorationterm·def – leading to increased learning potential. In the Stahl and Feigenson (2015) study described above, infants learned more when their expectations were violated, and also engaged in more information-seeking behavior and hypothesis-testing, congruent with the violations they observed. Neuroscientists are beginning to unravel the neural correlates of affect and surprise on learning ( Betzel et al., 2017 ), potentially through increased dopamine levels, which are implicated in the brain’s reward system and motivation (e.g., Cools, 2011 ; Dang et al., 2012 ). Beyond positive affect, intrinsic motivationterm is a key distinguishing feature of playterm·def, even in the traditional definitions offered above. The definition of intrinsic motivationterm offered by Ryan and Deci (2000) overlaps considerably with our conceptualization of playterm·def. Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivationterm, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn…. The construct of intrinsic motivationterm describes this natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and explorationterm·def that is so essential to cognitive and social development and that represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life ( Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde, 1993 ; Ryan, 1995 ) ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 , p. 70). This definition stresses minds-on thinking, engagement in the material to be learned, explorationterm·def/iterative thinking, assimilation (meaningfulness), and learning. These concepts all align with the same exact features that support learning. The key here, however, is that children engage in this process with agency. They are intrinsically motivated to learn and discover. Playful learning contexts, in which children lead the playterm·def experience with or without adult support (see Figure 1 ), thus capitalize on this intrinsic motivationterm to harness children’s own learning potential. Decades of research have investigated the role of intrinsic motivationterm and support its importance for learning and creativity among other positive outcomes ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). In a recent reviewterm·mth of programs that improved children’s executive functions, Diamond (2012) highlighted a potential mechanistic explanation for why playterm·def and learning may be mutually supportive: “Children devote time and effort to activities they love; therefore, EF interventions might use children’s motivation to advantage” (p. 335). Playterm·def, an inherently positive experience for children, has the potential to be the context that provides this advantage. Outstanding Issues Active, engaged, meaningful, social, iterative and joyfulterm·def are characteristics that individually and collectively appear in a number of scientific articles that highlight processes involved in optimal learning. These same characteristics coalesce in playterm·def. Thus, playful learning – and in particular guided playterm – should confer real learning advantages for academic and social outcomes. Adopting a more nuanced understanding of the playterm·def construct allows us to better understand how playterm·def might support learning: Different types of playterm·def may be optimal for different types of learning. This speaks not only to the theory of why guided playterm works, but also to long-standing debates in the field regarding optimal pedagogical approaches to learning. It also raises new questions that can guide further research. To the issue of why guided playterm works, we not only offer the parallel between the characteristics of playterm·def and high-quality learning, but also a theoretical argument for why guided playterm, in particular, feeds learning specific information. Bonawitz et al. (2009) argue that the possibility space of learning new information is vast, “Learning the affordances of a novel artifact is challenging because for any object, there are an unknown, and potentially large, number of causal properties.” (p. 1575). However, the danger of direct pedagogy is that it limits explorationterm·def and discovery, “…in natural learning contexts, pedagogical demonstrations cannot demonstrate all there is to know, and teaching will necessarily be limited.” (p. 1580). Because there are too many degrees of freedom in a free playterm situation, a child actively engaged with shapes, for example, who is not “guided” toward a learning outcome could guess that triangles have “points on top,” are in “primary colors,” or are “2 inches in length” rather than focusing on key variables like the number of sides and angles. However, what direct instructionterm does is teach children that these exact exemplars are triangles and the child may not understand that a square split along its diagonal is triangle because that was not what was taught. Thus, when free playterm pedagogies have been compared to direct instructionterm pedagogies – direct instructionterm pedagogical approaches are often better suited to learning ( Pianta et al., 2009 ; Fuller et al., 2017 ). Bonawitz et al. (2009) suggest “Understanding how to combine the efficiency of pedagogical knowledge transmission while encouraging curiosity and exploratory playterm·def is an important direction for future work.” (p. 1580). The introduction of a playterm·def spectrum with nuanced categories like guided playterm, however, changes the dynamic and answers this call. Guided playterm, like direct instructionterm techniques, constrains the contexts in which children generate hypotheses, effectively helping them to hone in on the learning and avoid distraction. For example, it invites children to playterm·def with a set of triangles that can be compared and contrasted such that key properties “fall out” of the context. It might also offer a “coach” who helps children direct attention to these defining characteristics. Thus, in Bonawitz’s theory, guided playterm points children in a direction that allows for “constrained tinkeringterm.” Guided playterm, however, also adopts the characteristics noted above and allows or even motivates the child to direct the learning in a joyfulterm·def way. Thus, guided playterm, sitting midway between direct instructionterm and free playterm, allows for the best of both pedagogical approaches. In this context, it no longer makes sense to say that pedagogies should be either playterm·def or direct instructionterm. High quality schools can have rich curricular goals and at the same time deliver them through guided playterm techniques. Indeed, this is precisely the formula that was recommended in a number of recent papers ( Bustamante et al., 2017 ; Fuller et al., 2017 ; Jenkins and Duncan, 2017 ), and Jenkins and Duncan (2017) write about the most effective pre-K curricula, “… these curricula provide teachers with lesson plans to follow in which playful activities are strategically organized to present children with learning opportunities that are focused, sequential and cumulative” (p. 39, see also Burchinal, 2018 ). By recognizing a continuum of playterm·def categories, we can better understand why playterm·def in general, and guided playterm in particular, is related to learning and we can accelerate learning outcomes by designing targeted playterm·def pedagogies. This spectrum-based view of playterm·def also allows us to better formulate questions about where and when particular types of playful learning might prove predictive of particular outcomes. As Jirout and Klahr (2012) argue, for second grade math curricula, direct instructionterm might prove a more effective way to help children settle on the right formulas (though see Weisberg et al., 2016 ). Might dramatic playterm·def be an optimal way for young children to learn socioemotional skills ( Copple and Bredekamp, 2009 ; Goldstein and Lerner, 2017 ; but see Lillard et al., 2013 )? Might guided playterm lead to stronger outcomes in literacy ( Han et al., 2010 ; Hassinger-Das et al., 2016 ; Cavanaugh et al., 2017 ; Toub et al., 2018 ) and STEM [e.g., spatial thinking ( Fisher et al., 2013 )]? While there are hints in the literature that confirm each of these hypotheses, more work needs to be done. Indeed, this work is beginning. In an impressive reviewterm·mth and analysis of pretend playterm·def in particular, Lillard et al. (2013) explore whether or not pretend playterm·def holds a causal role in supporting development. They find that when carefully examined, the evidence to date does not allow us to draw any firm conclusions about the casual role of pretend playterm·def and suggest that more and better research is needed. We could not agree more and suggest that viewing playterm·def as a spectrum allows us to create new hypotheses and design new studies to help tease apart the role of playterm·def and playful learning in developing a whole host of skills across childhood and beyond. In fact, Lillard et al. (2013) even directly state that the lack of firm research about the impact of pretend playterm·def on development does not equate to a call for teacher-centered approaches to education and learning. Instead, “The hands-on, child-driven educational methods sometimes referred to as “playful learning” ( Hirsh-PasekpersName et al., 2009 ) are the most positive means yet known to help young children’s development.” ( Lillard et al., 2013 , pp. 27–28). That is, it is possible that as we sketch out a suite of 21st century skills like those suggested by Golinkoff and Hirsh-PasekpersName (2016) that different types of playful learning are more or less effective. It will also be critical to explore whether different types of playterm·def afford these different advantages in the same way across context and time. As Schindler et al. (2017) reminds us, “This rapidly advancing science calls for a new early childhood agenda that builds on current investments in quality improvement and system building and seeks new models and methods in the quest for greater impacts. To this end, there is a need for enhanced theories of change and more effective strategies that move beyond the general question of “what works?” and seek a more nuanced understanding of what works (and what does not) for whom and why, and in what contexts ( Shonkoff and Fisher, 2013 )” (p. 1436). Conclusion While many would agree that playterm·def is an important part of childhood and supports social interactionterm and growth, questions about the relationship between playterm·def and learning abound and there is renewed energy around the study of playterm·def. To better harness this energy, though, we need to have a working definition of playterm·def that is not as broadly construed as that proposed in the global literature. Here, based on the newest research and with respect to playful learning studies in the past, we propose a multidimensional definition of playterm·def that creates a spectrum of playterm·def opportunities from free playterm through guided playterm to games and then playful direct instructionterm (a form of direct instructionterm with minor playful elements to try to keep children engaged). This more nuanced definition allows us to better define the mechanisms for playful learning – how and why different types of playterm·def are related to various types of outcomes. It also challenges us to raise new questions in the field that should enhance our understanding of how playterm·def relates to varied outcomes across time and in varied contexts. Author Contributions JZ was responsible for the first draft of the manuscript. KH-P and JZ were primarily responsible for main revisions. EH, HJ, CL, DN, SS, and DW were responsible for writing sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Footnotes