The problem with play

Why few people will ask questions about play-based learning on social media.

Thousands of small children playing

If you start an argument about play-based learning, consider faking your own death

Few edutwitter debates provoke more nastiness than those about play-based learning. Greg Ashman recently started one such debate and wrote a follow-up blog post:

Let the children play

Soon after, he wrote a blog post about all the crazed ad hominem attacks he was getting.

What people don’t understand about social media arguments

I don’t think this was a coincidence.¹ Anyone straying into this territory gets a nasty response. Here are the reasons why.

8 Reasons Why

1. “The Early Years Mafia”. This is a term I have used to refer to the vocal group of bullies who are very effective at silencing debate about Early Years on Twitter. They are so effective that I have even seen them bully people into deleting mention of the Early Years Mafia; try it and see. Those of us who don’t work in Early Years try to stay clear as we have our own battles to fight.² Also, those who do work in the Early Years Sector try to stay clear. The Early Years Mafia give the impression that anyone who works in the Early Years sector who expresses the wrong views could face severe career repercussions.

2. “Experts”. There is no end to the number of people with important sounding positions and qualifications who will publish their positive opinions about play-based learning (or play in general). Unfortunately, people who have never really looked at evidence, or who don’t believe in the scientific paradigm, do not know the difference between opinion and evidence. Discussing the evidence becomes very difficult as almost every request for details of that evidence is met with details of an opinion given by some supposed expert.

3. A thin evidence base. This meta-analysis gives an idea of how unreliable the evidence for play-based learning is. There are very few rigorous studies. Despite some of the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis showing statistically significant positive results, there are no good statistically significant results for most outcomes and there’s evidence of publication bias. It would suggest there isn’t enough evidence to resolve this.

4. An army of straw men. It is easy to create a straw man argument out of any discussion point about play-based learning. If you question play-based learning, you must be against play-based learning. If you are against play-based learning, you must be against play. If you are against letting children play, then you are a monster. This is a much easier argument to make than arguing any kind of empirical case for play-based learning. Alternatively, people may decide that if you ask for evidence of the effectiveness of play-based learning you are claiming that children cannot, or do not, learn from play. They may even decide that you are claiming play has no benefits at all.

5. The “science” of child development. I don’t mean to suggest that developmental psychology is not a science. It is possible to study some aspects of child development empirically. For instance, there are plenty of methods appropriate for studying the effects of age on, say, cognition or personality. However, it is not always useful to know when children typically develop a particular trait or ability.³ Theories of development are not reliable guides to the complex causal relationships between teaching methods and learning outcomes. Alternative theories usually exist.⁴ Many of the theories of development cited in educational contexts are not so popular with contemporary developmental psychologists. Some theories may be based entirely on studies of children from a limited range of contexts. However, appeals to the science of child development are frequently used as a justification for not questioning the effectiveness of play-based learning.

6. Definitions. I’m not going to try to define the word “play” here. However, I think it’s fair to say that we often identify activities as play because they are done for enjoyment. Therefore, if play is to be used for learning, rather than enjoyment, there is a question as to whether it can still be considered play. There are many ways to answer this point (“play” is a broad term and what precisely is meant by “play-based learning” might go beyond interpreting individual words in that phrase). However, if people have not thought this through they may resent being asked about it and be very defensive. Alternatively, some people will argue that everything a very young child does is “play” and try to make the effectiveness of play-based learning true by definition.

7. Reasonable assumptions. Because “play” is such a broad category, and because people haven’t always thought through their terms, there is very little evidence that applies to everything that might be considered “play”. This means there are many things we can assume about some types of play without knowing how widely they apply. It is reasonable to assume that the evolutionary purpose of some types of play is related to learning. It is reasonable to assume that all children learn through activities that might be considered play. It is not totally unreasonable to assume that some types of play are necessary for healthy development. However, the devil here is in the details, and people who advocate for play-based learning frequently make such claims without any idea which types of play are relevant or what the empirical evidence is. Asking for details or evidence, even with no intention to challenge them, can often result in defensive hostility.

8. Enthusiasts for the cause. The advocates of play-based learning will claim pretty much anything about the wonderfulness of play and provide evidence of nothing. There’s no hope of learning anything from people who debate in this way. Greg’s blog post about abuse argued that onlookers might be persuaded to take his side when the responses to his arguments are terrible. I wonder though if there are many onlookers considering this issue. Further evidence that extreme advocates of play-based learning will not tolerate debate can be found by looking at how keen they are for the authorities to police Early Years providers to ensure no formal learning is taking place. Ten years ago when Ofsted⁵ suggested they would not penalise settings for doing some formal learning in Early Years, there was outrage from the educational establishment. These are not people who would leave nurseries, schools, or teachers a choice about the balance between formal learning and play-based learning.

Abandon hope all ye who enter (this debate)

There may be something I’m missing here, but this seems like a debate that hasn’t moved on much in a very long time. I wrote about the same issue ten years ago. It is a minefield now, as it was then. Perhaps I’ll look at it again in 2034.

1. Greg has confirmed to me that it wasn’t a coincidence. All the abuse he documented was from the responses to that single tweet about play-based learning.

2. Although it has to be said, they will often find other reasons to come after you.

3. Paul Bloom develops this point in a blog post:

A lot of developmental psychology isn't worth doing

4. Greg Ashman’s controversial post cites the theories of David Geary, as a reason for scepticism about some of the ideas about play he has encountered. Personally, I have read several books by Jerome Kagan (affiliate link), for a perspective on developmental psychology that differs from the ones I’ve encountered in education.

5. England’s schools inspectorate.