Content uploaded by Karyn A. Allee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karyn A. Allee on Nov 01, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
https://ojs.luminescience.cn/RPPE https://luminescience.cn
Original Research
The power of play: investigating student success in kindergarten
classrooms
Karyn A. Allee
Atlanta Graduate Teacher Education, Tift College of Education, Mercer University, 3001 Mercer University Drive,
Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA
Correspondence to: Karyn A. Allee, allee_ka@mercer.edu
Received: Jun.10, 2024; Revised: Sep.21, 2024; Accepted: Oct.28, 2024; Published: Nov.01, 2024
Copyright ©2024 Karyn A. Allee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55976/rppe.22024127578-103
This is an open-access article distributed under a CC BY license (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Teaching in kindergarten has shifted in recent decades, with the US lagging behind other countries that
embrace play as a core pedagogical approach. While global efforts, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child, and national curricula in countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand promote play, opinions on its
role in early elementary education (K-2) remain divided in the US, and more research is needed to develop effective
teaching strategies. This quasi-experimental, pilot study explored the effects of two pedagogical approaches on Title
I kindergarten students’ executive function (EF), receptive vocabulary, and academic achievement, hypothesizing
that purposeful play would particularly benefit students from low-income backgrounds. Results showed that the
play-based group made signicantly greater reading gains, with links between stronger teacher-reported EF skills
and higher academic progress. Although some limitations exist, the ndings underscore the potential of play-based
pedagogy to enhance children's educational outcomes.
Keywords: Executive function, Kindergarten, Play-based pedagogy, Academic achievement, Title I, Reading, Math
Background
While nations grapple with educational reform efforts
globally, these efforts have been particularly pronounced in
the US (DeLuca et al., 2020). Educational reforms, notably
the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 and the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2002, have aimed to improve
educational outcomes for all children by emphasizing
standardized testing and accountability. These reforms
have fundamentally altered teaching practices across
the country from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade
education (i.e., the range of publicly funded primary and
secondary education in the US and Canada for children
aged ~4-18 years). The unintended consequences of
these efforts, however, have been a curriculum narrowing
through increased content control (i.e., how curriculum
responds to high-stakes assessments), pedagogic control
(i.e., colloquially referred to as teaching to the test), and
formal control (i.e., how high-stakes assessments drive
other educational decisions), often with detrimental effects
(Au, 2007).
In the US, for example, the disproportionate emphasis on
mastering discrete literacy and mathematics learning (i.e.,
curriculum control) has come at the expense of teaching
subjects like science, social studies, art, and music (Dee et
al., 2013; Milner et al., 2017). This shift has resulted in more
didactic instructional methods (i.e., pedagogical control),
characterized by whole-group, teacher-driven, worksheet-
and computer-based activities (Allee-Herndon et al., 2022;
Repko-Erwin, 2017). These priorities and this narrowing
have affected state and local education agencies’ choices
which further apply pressure to classroom teachers often
resulting in what Hatch called accountability shovedown
(2002). Kindergarten, which remains non-compulsory for
children in 33 states as of 2023 (Education Commission
of the States, 2024), is not considered a high-stakes
78 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024 Research on Preschool and Primary Education
testing grade, yet has been impacted by accountability
shovedown. While kindergarten students do not generally
take standardized assessments that are considered to be
high-stakes (i.e., require mandatory grade-level retention
for poor performance), they do regularly take progress
monitoring and summative standardized tests, and teachers
feel the pressure to prepare children for upper grade testing.
Consequently, the curriculum in many kindergartens has
shifted from a play-based, holistic approach to a more
didactic, academically rigorous one, with a primary
focus on literacy, mathematics, and test preparation (
Allee-Herndon et al., 2022; Repko-Erwin, 2017). Despite
these changes, the evidence suggests the prior persistent,
predictable achievement gaps (i.e., with student population
subgroups such as race/ethnicity, language prociency,
socioeconomic status, or exceptional education services
received) have not closed (Rothwell, 2016), or at least have
not closed in any meaningful way (Center on Educational
Policy, 2007). In essence, children are still being left
behind, particularly those attending underfunded and
under-resourced schools.
Changed expectations for school readiness
and kindergarten achievement outcomes
This observable shift in the educational culture of
kindergarten and early learning spaces has also changed
perceptions of school readiness and academic success
(Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2019, 2021; Bailey et al., 2019;
Bassok et al., 2016; Pyle et al., 2018; Repko-Erwin, 2017).
School readiness, typically dened across the domains of
child, family, and school (Brown & Lan, 2015; National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 2021),
refers to the skills, behaviors, and knowledge necessary for
formal education. Historically, both families and educators
valued children's ability to communicate needs and
curiosity (West et al., 1993). However, families previously
emphasized skills like sitting still, using tools, counting,
and alphabet recognition more than teachers did (West
et al., 1993), and legislative changes have since aligned
teachers' priorities with those family expectations.
Kindergarten teachers now report (Bassok et al., 2016;
Brown & Lan, 2015) prioritizing alphabet knowledge and
the ability to hold a pencil (~33%) upon school entry and
that children should know how to read upon kindergarten
exit (~50%). The focus on academic standards and testing
has reduced time for daily art and music lessons (~17%)
and generated the reduction or removal of discovery
or play centers (~20%) in favor of daily workbook use
(~15%) and other types of didactic instruction aligned
with assessments and accountability measures (Bassok
et al., 2016; Brown & Lan, 2015). This shift reects a
rejection of understanding that school readiness is bi- or
tri-directional and has emphasized almost exclusively
child-focused readiness, often viewed through a decit
lens, prompting instructional changes that contribute to the
academic shovedown (Brown & Lan, 2015; Hatch, 2002;
Iruka et al., 2022). Consequently, whole-group instruction
has increased, reducing play and children’s autonomy in
service of preparing for and administering assessments
(Allee-Herndon et al., 2022; Bassok et al., 2016; Pyle et
al., 2018; Repko-Erwin, 2017).
While direct instruction can help learners with literacy
and math (de Bilde et al., 2015; Gersten & Carnine, 1984;
Myers & Ankrum, 2018), there is evidence that it is not
always effective (Dean & Kuhn, 2007; Taylor & Bilbrey,
2012). Discipline-based instructional frameworks like the
National Council for Teaching Mathematics’ High Leverage
Practices (2014) and Next Generation Science Standards
(National Research Council et al., 2007) advocate active,
verbal, creative, and discovery-based learning and are more
in line with cognitive and social constructivist theories
(Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978) than a didactic instructional
approach. However, despite this apparent contradiction,
the most vulnerable or marginalized children in the most
underfunded and under-resourced schools often receive
the least of this engaging instruction (Allee-Herndon et
al., 2022; Wood et al., 2022), especially as a result of this
schoolication of early learning (Wood et al., 2022). This
schoolication epidemic (Ring & O’Sullivan, 2018) and its
resultant didactic, narrowed instruction and learning both
creates and amplies equity issues.
Intended and unintended equity impacts of
educational improvement efforts
Disparities in school readiness and performance in
kindergarten can stem from various sources, with poverty
being a signicant factor (Allee-Herndon & Roberts,
2019). Economic disparities are already evident in infancy
and become even more pronounced at kindergarten age
(Burchinal et al., 2011; Halle et al., 2009). Some researchers
argue that by kindergarten, the achievement gap is so
substantial that it may be insurmountable (Burchinal et
al., 2011). Academic and cognitive disparities based on
income are notable as early as kindergarten across various
subjects (Bailey et al., 2019; Curran, 2017; Gilkerson et
al., 2018; Mazzocco & Claessens, 2020). Given the crucial
role of successful early childhood experiences in long-
term outcomes (Brownell et al., 2015; Schweinhart, 2018),
it is crucial to ensure that all children have a positive
kindergarten experience.
One key explanation for the income-based kindergarten
achievement gap is the impact of adverse childhood
experiences, trauma, and chronic toxic stress (e.g., from
experiencing extreme poverty and systemic disadvantage
or trauma) on brain development (Blair & Raver, 2016;
Madrick, 2020; Roos et al., 2019). Chronic stress can
trigger a persistent ght-or-ight response and release
stress hormones that affect the amygdala, reduce brain
size, and delay prefrontal cortex (PFC) development in
young children (Agorastos et al., 2019; Allee-Herndon &
Roberts, 2019). The PFC is vital for higher-order cognitive
functions, emotional regulation, and behavior, all of
79 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
which are foundational for school readiness (Bailey &
Jones, 2019). It encompasses executive function which is
responsible for attention, impulse control, planning, goal
setting, decision-making, learning, and memory (Bailey et
al., 2019; Blair & Raver, 2015; Fitzpatrick et al., 2014),
as well as self-regulation (Colliver et al., 2022) and
approaches to learning.
PFC developmental delays are closely linked to
socioeconomic status (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2019;
Bailey & Jones, 2019; Blair & Raver, 2015; Fitzpatrick et
al., 2014), correlate strongly with school readiness (Blair,
2016; Raver et al., 2011; Vitiello & Greeneld, 2017), and
predict academic achievement (Coldren, 2013; Curran,
2017; Gimbert et al., 2019; Meixner et al., 2019; Morgan
et al., 2019; Nesbitt et al., 2019; Skibbe et al., 2019).
While the mechanisms linking PFC skills and academic
success are not fully understood (Ellwood-Lowe et al.,
2016), these skills are known to predict success in school,
both in kindergarten and over time. Children with PFC
developmental delays may seem unprepared for school
behaviorally, academically, and socially, but early positive
interventions can buffer these children and mitigate the
effects of adversity (Shonkoff, 2011).
Effective interventions promote brain growth and reduce
stress through predictable routines, responsive relationships,
a sense of safety and agency, and skill practice with support
(Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2019). Play and playful learning
environments can create these conditions. Movement
during play helps build neural pathways and consolidate
new learning (Egger et al., 2019), while language practice
and vocabulary development occur through sharing,
negotiating, and collaborating (Allee-Herndon et al.,
2022). Play also enhances executive function skills such
as working memory, cognitive exibility, and inhibitory
control through rule-following, planning, problem-solving,
and cooperation (Center on the Developing Child, 2017;
Moreno et al., 2017). Additionally, play fosters cognitive
skills and academic concepts through discovery, inquiry,
experimentation, and application (McDonald, 2018; Mraz
et al., 2016; Riek, 2014).
Play aligns with constructivist learning theories (Piaget,
1977; Vygotsky, 1978) and developmentally appropriate
practice (National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 2021), supporting high-quality pedagogy
aimed at enhancing PFC development (Shonkoff, 2011).
Recognized as foundational for children's development
across various domains of well-being and growth (Nesbitt
et al., 2023), play can be understood along a continuum.
Expanding on Pyle and Danniels’ (2017) continuum of
play-based learning—which ranges from free play to
learning through games—Zosh et al. (2018) describe
playful learning as being tied to explicit learning goals and
initiated and/or directed by either children or adults. Hirsh-
Pasek and colleagues have coined the term active, playful
learning to articulate how learning can occur through play,
with or without adult facilitation, and with varying levels
of structure (Nesbitt et al., 2023, Active Playful Learning
section).
This active, play-based approach, which is more likely
in our current climate to incorporate purposeful or guided
play (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2021) than free play or the
completely immersive thematic play from 30 years ago, is
contrary to the current US contemporary approach which
requires extensive "sitting and getting." Active, playful
learning, or guided or purposeful play, is designed and
facilitated through the lens of learning objectives aligned
with academic standards without sacricing children’s
agency and interests and has been shown to generate
more positive outcomes across developmental domains
than direct instruction (Nesbitt et al., 2023). Children
with developmental delays in PFC can appear to be the
children most in need of growth opportunities such as
those playful learning can provide. However, in an effort
to "catch them up" to their peers, they are often asked to
do the most rigid, sedentary, teacher-directed learning
which evidence suggests is less effective in achieving
these intended goals (although some evidence suggests
this is not true, i.e., Chiatovich & Stipek, 2016). Children
who struggle to remember directions, control their
bodies or voices, have difculty resolving social conict,
struggle to persist in the face of academic struggle, or
display externalizing behaviors—which are all potential
indicators of PFC delays—are the least prepared to focus
on worksheets, computer-based instruction, and direct
instruction but are expected to do this the most (Allee et al.,
2023; Allee-Herndon et al., 2022). This lack of learner and
learning task alignment likely contributes to the increase in
externalizing behaviors and exclusionary discipline which
disproportionately impacts historically marginalized and
underserved learners and further removes them from the
learning happening in the classroom (Allee-Herndon et al.,
2019; Lee & Bierman, 2016; Razza et al., 2015; Skiba et
al., 2011). Evidence suggests school absenteeism, which
further removes students from learning, is also related
to external factors such as poverty (Ansari & Gottfried,
2020) adding confounding factors to their disadvantage.
Children who are "behind" may need authentic, engaging,
developmentally appropriate, playful learning experiences
the most, but shifting the US educational culture will not
be easy.
The via media as a potential solution
In contrast to most of the US, other countries are
integrating play with assessment, prioritizing a balanced
pedagogical approach, especially in schools serving
vulnerable learners such as US Title I schools with diverse
racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural backgrounds and
schools in densely urban areas (Allee et al., 2023; Allee-
Herndon et al., 2022; DeLuca et al., 2020). A signicant
challenge in the US is the perceived dichotomy between
focusing on rigorous standards and incorporating play
(Bassok et al., 2016; Ranz-Smith, 2007; Repko-Erwin,
2017). This perception has increased pressure and tension
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
80 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
in early childhood classrooms (Dealey & Stone, 2018;
Nitecki & Chung, 2013; Pyle et al., 2018) as educators
contend with accountability measures. Structured, didactic
classrooms are often viewed as being at one end of the
pedagogical spectrum, opposite to play-based learning and
child-directed play (Allee-Herndon et al., 2019; Pyle &
Danniels, 2017; Repko-Erwin, 2017), implying a necessary
choice between the two.
However, a few US states (i.e., Connecticut, Oklahoma,
and New Hampshire) are beginning to consider or have
already passed legislation to support playful learning,
although these efforts are still in the minority (Blinkoff
et al., 2023). Rather than trying to convince policymakers
to abandon the notion that play and academic rigor are
mutually exclusive, it may be more effective to propose
a via media approach—similar to international trends and
supported by families, policy advisors, and researchers
(Brown et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2022). The via media,
or "middle road," emphasizes moderation and balance,
integrating play into the curriculum without sacricing
academic standards. Active, playful learning (Nesbitt et
al., 2023), which incorporates purposeful or guided play
and a student-centered focus, represents this balanced
approach where teachers create environments that
scaffold and support children's learning aligned with
specic goals (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2021; Mraz et
al., 2016; Weisberg et al., 2016). Unlike free play, which
allows complete child autonomy and is further removed
on the continuum from didactic instruction, guided play
provides structured opportunities for learning while also
incorporating student agency (Allee-Herndon et al., 2019;
Pyle & Danniels, 2017; Repko-Erwin, 2017; Stockard et
al., 2018).
To shift towards more developmentally appropriate,
stress-reducing, and child-friendly environments, which
evidence suggests can support PFC development (Shonkoff,
2011) and other positive child development outcomes, we
need more evidence that play supports learning and to
empower teachers to apply these ndings (Bishop et al.,
2020; Koslouski & Stark, 2021). Combining play-based
pedagogy with organized and intentional direct instruction,
planned through a developmentally appropriate lens, is
likely to yield better outcomes than current practices (Allee-
Herndon et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2015). Adding to the growing
evidence supporting playful learning has the potential to
justify instructional shifts back toward this direction in the
US and elsewhere. Given the lack of desired results (Center
on Educational Policy, 2007; Rothwell, 2016) from the past
30 years of narrow, academically intense instruction (Au,
2007), a balanced approach combining standards-driven
instruction with active, playful learning is a promising
both/and starting point.
Present study
The current research aims to gather evidence as part of a
larger study conducted in Central Florida. A Title I school
was intentionally selected to examine the effects of different
pedagogical approaches on kindergarten student outcomes,
given that Title I schools serve higher percentages of
economically disadvantaged students (US Department
of Education, 2018). The participating educators were
also chosen purposefully (Patton, 2002) to investigate
the impacts of incorporating play-based learning versus a
traditional didactic approach. In contrast to countries such
as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many Northern
European nations, the US kindergarten curriculum largely
avoids play, viewing it as counterproductive to rigorous,
academically-focused learning and accountability (Bassok
et al., 2016; Ranz-Smith, 2007; Repko-Erwin, 2017).
Play-based learning, also known as guided or purposeful
play, is often described as offering children freedom
of choice, discovery, and exploration within an adult-
facilitated structure (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2021).
Hirsh-Pasek and colleagues have expanded on this concept
to conceptualize a framework for active, playful using a
three-part equation that adds cultural values to the science
of how children learn with critical components of what
children should learn (Nesbitt et al., 2023). International
readers might nd their denition of play-based learning
more similar to the US kindergartens of over 30 years ago,
which included elements like housekeeping centers, sand
and water tables, and various art centers. In this study,
"play-based" is used as a shorthand to refer to classrooms
in which purposeful or guided play alongside district- or
state-mandated curricula to help students achieve learning
goals aligned with the active, playful learning mindset.
This paper also uses the term "contemporary classroom"
to describe the predominantly didactic, teacher-directed
environment found in schoolied US kindergartens.
The primary aim of this research is to conduct preliminary
investigations into the potential benets of playful learning
as an instructional method to mitigate the negative
effects of income insecurity on academic achievement in
kindergarten. The study focuses on examining how small,
play-based pedagogical shifts might inuence student
outcomes, guided by the following research questions:
1.To what extent do pedagogical differences in a
contemporary classroom and a classroom prioritizing
active, playful learning inuence executive function,
vocabulary, and reading and math academic achievement
among Title I kindergarten students?
2.Are there relationships between posttest measures of
vocabulary and reading and math academic achievement
and teacher posttest measures of students’ executive
function among kindergarteners in a Title I school?
Emerging evidence (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, 2019;
Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2022; Nesbitt et al., 2023) shows play,
including playful learning, contributes to positive cognitive
and physical development, social and emotional well-being,
and academic skill development (Nesbitt et al., 2023). It
was hypothesized that, even without a specic experimental
condition, children in the play-based classroom would
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 81 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
outperform their peers in the contemporary classroom on
measures of academic outcomes (i.e., receptive vocabulary,
reading and math achievement scores) and executive
function health. It was also hypothesized, based on prior
research evidence (Allee et al., 2023; Bailey & Jones,
2019, Blair & Raver, 2014; Gimbert et al., 2019; Meixner
et al., 2019; Morgan et al., 2017, 2019; Nesbitt et al., 2019;
Skibbe et al., 2019), that there would be relationships
between children’s academic outcomes and executive
function. Specically, the hypothesis was that greater
executive function wellness or health would be positively
correlated with children’s strong academic performance.
Method
Participants
This naturalistic, quasi-experimental study received
approval from the university Institutional Review Board
and the local school and district administrators. The
participants were 30 kindergarten students purposively
recruited (Patton, 2002) from a Title I elementary school in
Central Florida. Title I status is based on the percentage of
students eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL;
USDOE, 2018), which is frequently used as a surrogate
variable for economic insecurity. Teacher A, the play-based
instructor, volunteered after recruiting on social media,
while Teacher B, representing the contemporary classroom,
was chosen by the principal for their distinctly different
pedagogical approach. Pre-kindergarten literacy skills
(e.g., phonological awareness, letter recognition) were
assessed in the summer before kindergarten entry, and the
20 students with the best results were assigned to the play-
based classroom. The remaining students were distributed
among the ve other classrooms, including Teacher B’s
contemporary classroom. Presumably, the school was
interested in providing “enrichment" for more "advanced",
ability-grouped students. One could also assume that
students who were considered to be less “academically
at-risk" could afford to play more and/or Teacher A had a
long-standing history at this school and was able to "get
away" with teaching differently than the other teachers.
Regardless, this school-based decision, which had been
the practice for multiple years, presented a complication
for the study. As such, statistical adjustments accounted for
the initial differences in literacy scores to compare growth
rather than raw scores which is discussed in greater detail
in the Results and Discussion sections.
WAfter securing informed consent from educators,
parents and family caregivers were recruited during
Curriculum Night and Open House presentations as well
as through classroom newsletters. Parents were informed
that the study aimed to analyze instructional approaches
without revealing the specic research hypotheses, and
the teachers were kept blind to the research hypotheses,
too, only knowing play was a variable of interest in an
investigation of different instructional approaches. Children
were eligible if they were in one of the two classrooms, had
parental consent, and gave verbal assent to participate. Out
of 39 potential participants, 31 students were included: 19
from the play-based classroom (68% FRPL) and 12 from
the contemporary classroom (67% FRPL). Despite the
unequal sample sizes, the students were demographically
similar (Table 1).
Tab le 1 . Participant demographics by condition
Play-Based Kindergarten
n = 19
Contemporary Kindergarten
n = 12
Gender Female = 11 (57.9%) Male = 8 (42.1%) Female = 7 (58.3%) Female = 7 (58.3%)
Race/Ethnicity Asian = 1 (5.3%) Asian = 0 (0%)
Hispanic = 5 (26.3%) Hispanic = 2 (16.7%)
White = 10 (52.6%) White = 9 (75.0%)
Black = 3 (15.8%) Black = 1 (8.3%)
Yes No Yes No
ESE 0 (0%) 19 (100%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%)
Gifted/ Talented 0 (0%) 19 (100%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%)
504 Plan 0 (0%) 19 (100%) 0 (0%) 12 (100%)
EL 1 (5.3%) 18 (94.7%) 1 (8.3%) 11 (91.7%)
FRPL 13 (68.4%) 6 (31.6%) 8 (66.7%) 4 (33.3%)
Age at Pretest M = 5.64 years
Range = 5.11 – 6.6 years
M = 5.52 years
Range = 5.10 – 5.82 years
Note. ESE = Exceptional Student Education. 504 Plan = Plans schools put in place to support students with disabilities by removing
barriers and providing accommodations. EL = English Learners. FRPL = Free or Reduced-Price Lunch, which is often used as a proxy
for students’ socioeconomic status.
82 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024 Research on Preschool and Primary Education
Classroom conditions
Both classrooms adhered to state kindergarten academic
standards and used district-adopted curricula and
assessments (Allee-Herndon et al., 2022). However, the
instructional environments differed signicantly. Regular
classroom visits were conducted to observe instruction at
various times of the day and days of the week using the
School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale, Updated
Edition (SACERS-U; Harms et al., 2013) and eld notes
for data collection. Formal analysis of that data is not
included in this paper, but casual observation of the two
classrooms paints two very distinct classroom spaces, and
a summary of similarities and differences are represented
in Figure 1. While the physical environments, among
other factors like teacher personality, may or may not
have contributed to differential student outcomes, a brief
description is included below for context.
Teacher A used an active, playful learning approach
in the classroom with exible seating, colorful wall
resources and anchor charts, and a variety of learning space
congurations, from whole group instruction to centers and
individual workstations. Student work was displayed on
the walls, music and movement were part of the morning
circle, and books and materials were easily accessible to the
children. Teacher A incorporated 30 minutes of guided play
learning stations (e.g., writing, literacy games, math games
aligned to specic learning goals) and 30 minutes of free-
play centers (e.g., housekeeping, blocks, puppets, games,
art) each day. Students regularly engaged in choosing how
and what to play, emphasizing a spirit of collaboration,
creative innovation, critical thinking, condence building,
and content-knowledge development, what Golinkoff and
Hirsh-Pasek (2016) coined the "6Cs" of what children
learn through play-based experiences. Teacher B in the
contemporary classroom had a more austere classroom
space with very little adorning the walls, very little color
in the classroom, a rug area with assigned seats, and desks
arranged for whole group instruction or isolated learning as
a behavior management tool. While the student desks were
periodically rearranged, they were always congured in
whole group structures. There were wall-based resources
present, but they were fewer, and Teacher B was not
observed referencing them often. Both teachers had 30
minutes of outdoor recess daily after lunch.
Data collection procedures
Three instruments were used in pre- and posttests to
measure students’ language, academic, and executive
function outcomes. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test 4th Edition (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, 2007) assessed
receptive vocabulary, administered individually in a quiet
room. The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
2nd Edition (BRIEF2; Gioia et al., 2015) collected data on
executive function from teachers via surveys the teachers
completed in September (beginning) and May (end of the
school year). Completing the teacher survey took teachers
10-15 minutes per student, and they were provided
classroom coverage and release time by their principal
to enter the data so they did not need to complete the
surveys on their own time. The i-Ready Reading and Math
Diagnostic Assessments (Curriculum Associates, n.d.),
required by the district measured academic achievement.
An overview of the data collection timeline is presented in
Figure 2 (Allee et al., 2023 and Allee-Herndon et al., 2022
for more procedural detail).
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4th Edition. The
PPVT-4 (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) measures receptive
vocabulary and has been used in prior studies as a proxy
for evaluating language and cognitive development ( Allee-
Herndon et al., 2022). The assessor provides a verbal cue
(e.g., "Show me ‘elbow’"), and the participant selects the
corresponding image. The PPVT-4 has two formats; in this
study, Format A was used at pretest, and Format B was used
at posttest. The PPVT-4 is reliable and valid, with strong
convergent validity and test-retest reliability. The PPVT-4
has convergent validity with a variety of other language
and cognition instruments including the Expressive
Vocabulary Test, Second Edition (.80 < r < .84); Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition (.67
< r < .75); and Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic
Evaluation (.81 < r < .91; Dunn & Dunn, 2013). It is also
reliable across administration age groups (2.6 – ≥81 years
old), has alternate form (n = 508, .87 < r < .93) and test-
retest reliability (n = 340, .92 < r < .96), and demonstrates
consistency with kindergarten-aged children (.94 < r < .97;
Dunn & Dunn, 2013).
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function
2nd Edition. The BRIEF2 (Gioia et al., 2015) measures
executive (dys)function via 63 items across nine clinical
subfactors scored within three different indices and as a
Global Executive Composite (GEC) score. Lower scores
indicate better executive function; scores below 60 are
considered to indicate a child’s executive function is
within normal limits for their age and gender, scores
between 60-64, 65-69, and ≥70 indicate mildly, potentially
clinically, and clinically elevated concern respectively
(Gioia et al., 2015). It is reliable with Teacher Screening
Form coefcients between .36 to .80, with strong internal
consistency and test-retest reliability (r = .90) and T-score
stability values showing little change (average T-score
change on the three indices and GEC of 2.50 points).
Interrater reliability scores between teachers and teachers
are moderately stable (r = .57) as compared to parents and
teachers (r = .72) and parents and parents (r = .71). The
BRIEF2 has strong internal consistency (e.g., GEC Teacher
[r = .98]), and concurrent validity with the Child Behavior
Checklist, the Behavior Assessment System for Children,
Second Edition, the Parent Rating Scales, the Conners
Third Edition–Parent Short Form, and the ADHD-Rating
Scale-IV as cited in Gioia et al. (2015).
83 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
Figure 1. Illustrative overview of sample similarities and differences in classroom condition
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
84 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Figure 2. Study data collection timeline
85 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
i-Ready Reading and Math Diagnostic Assessment. The
study district required the use of i-Ready Diagnostic
Assessments for reading and math (Curriculum Associates,
n.d.) three times per year for elementary students—
beginning, middle, and end—even in grades not required
to take high-stakes state testing like kindergarten. The
district selected this assessment tool and the corresponding
instructional tools because i-Ready is intended for K-12
students and is aligned to state standards, the Every
Student Succeeds Act (2015) requirements, and the What
Works Clearinghouse (Allee-Herndon et al., 2022). The
i-Ready Diagnostic Assessments are adaptive tests, and
kindergarten students at this school took them during
small group instruction on i-Pads with headphones to
listen to questions and prompts, as a way to support pre-
and early readers. The reading test assesses phonological
awareness, phonics, high-frequency words, vocabulary,
and text comprehension, while the math test covers
algebra, number operations, geometry, and measurement
(Curriculum Associates, 2018). The American Institutes for
Research (AIR; 2020) determined the i-Ready Diagnostic
Assessment has an acceptable test-retest reliability (n =
120,194, rmedian = .70) and marginal reliability (n =
184,261, r = .91; AIR, 2020). They also found strong
correlations to the Florida Standards Assessment (i.e., the
state high-stakes assessment for children in 3rd through
10th grades) with i-Ready Reading (n = 291,000, .83 < r <
.85) and i-Ready Math (n = 286,000, .87 < r < .88) indicating
good predictive validity and reliability for elementary
students. AIR also determined there were correlations to
1st grade Lexile scores (n = 840, rmedian = .88), though
generalization to kindergarten should be done cautiously.
Design and analysis
This study employed a pretest-posttest, non-equivalent
control group design to assess the impact of pedagogical
differences on students’ receptive vocabulary, executive
function, and academic achievement. A difference-in-
differences (DiD) approach was used with classroom
condition and time as the independent variables, and
PPVT-4, Teacher BRIEF2, and i-Ready Reading and Math
Diagnostic Assessment scores as the dependent variables.
Covariates included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and FRPL
status. The analytic sample (n = 28) excluded cases with
missing data. Additionally, Spearman’s Rank Correlation
Coefcient analysis examined the relationships between
posttest measures of reading and math achievement
and executive function, including all 31 students in this
analysis.
Results
The effects of playful learning pedagogy
To assess the impact of classroom condition (play-
based vs. contemporary) on developmental outcomes,
a series of 26 separate Difference-in-Differences (DiD)
regression analyses were conducted, controlling for
baseline age, gender, race/ethnicity, and FRPL status.
Each model evaluated the main effects of time (pretest vs.
posttest), condition (play-based vs. contemporary), and
the interaction between time and condition, along with
the covariates. The overall t of the models was assessed
using F-statistics, degrees of freedom, and adjusted
R² values. The results of the regression models are
summarized in Table 2. For each outcome, the table
presents the unstandardized coefcients (B), standard errors
(SE), and p-values for time, condition, and interaction
effects. In addition, the table includes the F-statistic and
associated p-value, as well as the adjusted R² for each
model, indicating how much of the variance in each
outcome was explained by the predictors.
Main effect for classroom condition. An analysis of
the main effect of classroom condition revealed signicant
differences across several outcomes. The classroom
condition had a statistically signicant negative effect
on Vocabulary scores (B = -103.130, p = .003) and
Task Monitoring (B = -17.996, p = .009), indicating
that students in different conditions displayed notable
differences in their ability to monitor tasks and their
vocabulary knowledge. Students in the contemporary
classroom had a mean baseline (i.e., beginning of the
year or BOY) Vocabulary score that was 21.42 points
higher than students in the play-based classroom (MC =
383.700, MPB = 362.280), but at posttest (i.e., end of the
year or EOY), the children in the play-based classroom
had increased their Vocabulary scores by a mean score of
89.889 whereas children in the contemporary classroom
had only increased an average of 9.300 points. Despite the
discrepancy at baseline, the rate of Vocabulary change for
children in the play-based classroom was greater, and the
end results were higher at posttest (MPB = 452.167, MC
= 393.00). While students in both classroom conditions
increased their mean Task Monitoring score slightly from
pretest (MPB = 43.556, MC = 62.300) to posttest (MPB
= 44.167, MC = 63.400) with a mean difference score
of 0.611 and 1.100 respectively, the more interesting
difference is in the scores themselves. For BRIEF2 scores
of executive function, unlike PPVT-4 and i-Ready scores,
lower scores indicate greater health. Children in the play-
based classroom had mean Task Monitoring scores at both
time points well within the typical range, while children in
the contemporary classroom had mean scores crossing the
threshold into mildly elevated levels of concern.
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
86 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Table 2. Results of the regression models
Main Effects B (SE) Interaction Effect B (SE) Overall Model
Variables Condition Time Condition*Time F(7,48) Adjusted R2 Signicant Covariates
Receptive Vocabulary
1. PPVT-4 Raw Scores 20.836 (11.278) 17.300 (5.715)** -5.356 (7.128) 5.453*** .362 Race: B = -5.684 (2.760)*
Reading
2. i-Ready Reading Overall Score† -27.975 (22.304) 50.800 (11.302)*** 50.089 (14.097)*** 32.242*** .799 Age: B = 3.818 (1.301)**
3. Phonological Awareness -2.241 (36.000) 74.600 (18.243)*** 22.511 (22.752) 11.147*** .564
4. Phonics -25.485 (35.068) 54.500 (17.770)** 66.167 (22.164)** 21.824*** .726 Age: B = 5.692 (2.045)**
5. High Frequency Words -2.817 (32.113) 67.500 (16.273)*** 51.389 (20.296)* 24.849***
6. Vocabulary -103.130 (32.335)** 9.300 (16.386) 80.589 (20.437)*** 10.135*** .538 Age: B = 4.961 (1.886)**
7. Comprehension: Literary Text -12.889 (41.098) 49.200 (20.826)* 36.133 (25.975) 7.110*** .437
8. Comprehension: Informational Text -31.310 (38.175) 43.600 (19.345)* 46.289 (24.127) 8.868***
Math
9. i-Ready Math Overall Score† 1.594 (13.484) 34.600 (6.833)*** 12.789 (8.522) 21.261*** .721 Age: B = 2.329 (.786)**
10. Number Sense and Operations 26.578 (16.080 45.400 (8.148)*** -4.900 (10.163) 13.783*** .619
11. Algebra and Algebraic Thinking -10.253 (21.331) 31.000 (10.809)** 26.111 (13.481) 11.658*** .576
12. Measurement and Data -5.122 (19.382) 27.600 (9.822)** 17.844 (12.250) 10.121*** .537 Age: B = 2.962 (1.130)*
13. Geometry -9.178 (17.229) 33.200 (8.731)*** 12.022 (10.889) 11.339*** .568
Executive Function
14. Global Executive Composite‡ -9.1117 (6.983) 5.500 (3.539) -6.389 (4.413) 11.633*** .575
15. Behavior Regulation Index† -8.120 (9.711) 5.300 (4.921) -5.967 (6.137) 5.407*** .359
16. Inhibit -2.593 (10.421) 6.300 (5.281) -7.078 (6.587) 3.503** .242
17. Self-Monitor -15.028 (7.655) 2.600 (3.879) -2.822 (4.838) 9.614*** .523
18. Emotional Regulation Index† -2.013 (9.716) 7.000 (4.924) -10.000 (6.141) 6.028*** .390 FRPL: B = -3.891 (1.642)*
19. Shift -11.789 (6.567) 3.200 (3.328) -5.422 (4.150) 14.600*** .634
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 87 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Main Effects B (SE) Interaction Effect B (SE) Overall Model
20. Emotional Control 9.480 (12.218) 8.800 (6.191) -12.300 (7.722) 2.231* .135
21. Cognitive Regulation Index† -11.988 (5.730) 3.300 (2.904) -3.133 (3.622) 12.994*** .604
22. Initiate -4.522 (6.433) 2.700 (3.260) -3.756 (4.066) 4.207*** .290 FRPL: B = -.003 (1.087)**
23. Working Memory -11.108 (6.169) 2.700 (3.126) -2.033 (3.899) 8.163*** .477
24. Planning and Organization -8.572 (4.706) 5.100 (2.385)* -4.711 (2.974) 16.978*** .670
25. Task Monitoring -17.996 (6.648)** 1.100 (3.369 -.489 (4.202) 13.158*** .607 Gender: B = 4.648 (2.166)*
26. Organizing Materials -4.706 (5.232) 5.100 (2.651) -6.378 (3.307) 11.760*** .578
Note. † = Overall Score (with sub-scores underneath). ‡ = Overall Composite Score (with sub-scores underneath, including relevant Overall Scores). * p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01. *** p < .001.
B = unstandardized regression coefcient. SE = standard error. F-statistic = ratio of variance. Adjusted R2 = coefcient of determination adjusted for the number of predictors in the
model and the sample size
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
88 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Additionally, condition approached signicance in
predicting Planning and Organization abilities (B = -8.572,
p = .075), suggesting that students in different conditions
may also have differed in how well they could plan and
organize their work, though this effect did not reach the
threshold for statistical signicance. Once again, scores in
both conditions increased on average from baseline (MPB
= 41.722, MC = 55.100) to the end of the year (MPB =
42.111, MC = 60.200), but followed similar patterns as
Task Monitoring with the children in the contemporary
classroom just crossing the threshold into mildly elevated
concern. While the condition variable did not have a
signicant main effect on Organizing Materials (B = -4.706,
p = .373) or Comprehension of Informational Text (B =
-31.310, p = .416), negative trends were observed in both
cases, implying that students in different conditions may
have exhibited lower performance in these areas, though
the differences were not statistically conclusive. Children
in the play-based classroom improved (i.e., decreased)
their mean Organizing Materials scores from pre- (MPB
= 43.500) to posttest (MPB = 42.222), but children in the
contemporary classroom had mean scores with increased
levels of concern during the same timeframe (MC = 54.600
and 59.700 respectively). Again, while not a statistically
signicant difference, children in the play-based classroom
had higher Comprehension of Informational Text mean
scores at pretest (MPB = 389.389, MC = 373.700) and
posttest (MPB = 479.278, MC = 417.300) with a greater
mean change over time (MPB = 89.889, MC = 43.600).
Overall, the ndings suggest that the educational or
environmental condition signicantly impacted certain
cognitive and academic skills, particularly task monitoring
and vocabulary, with trends also observed for planning and
organizational skills.
Main effect for time. The analysis revealed that time had
a signicant positive effect on multiple outcomes across
academic and executive function domains. Time had a
signicant positive impact on Receptive Vocabulary, all
reading scores except the Vocabulary sub score (B = 9.300,
p = .573), and all i-Ready math scores. The only BRIEF2
executive function score signicantly impacted by time
was Planning and Organization (B = 5.100, p = .038).
These results suggest that students developed stronger
academic skills over time and demonstrated substantial
improvements in these areas, but there was a negative trend
in the Planning and Organization outcomes (i.e., higher
scores are not desirable).
While the effect of time on Emotional Control (B =
8.800, p = .162) and Inhibitory Control (B = 6.300, p =
.239) was not statistically signicant, there were notable,
albeit concerning, trends in these areas as well. Children
in the play-based class showed improvement on average
from pretest (MPB = 53.444) to posttest (MPB = 49.944)
with a mean difference score of -3.500 (remember lower
scores indicate greater health) where the mean difference
score for children in the contemporary class increased by
8.800, putting the average posttest score in the potentially
clinically elevated range (MC = 57.100 to 65.900 from
baseline to the end of the year). Overall, the results
suggest that time had a robust effect on students’ academic
performance, as might be expected, as well as on key
aspects of executive functioning, although not always in a
positive manner.
Interaction effect for condition*time. Several interaction
effects between condition and time were identied across
reading domains. The effect of time on Overall Reading
scores differed between the play-based and contemporary
classrooms (B = 50.800, p < .001). Specically, students
in the play-based classroom improved more over time
compared to students in the contemporary classroom
with mean difference scores of MPB = 100.889 and MC
= 50.800 respectively. There were similar outcomes for
High Frequency Words (B = 51.389, p = .015, MPB =
118.889 and MC = 67.500) and Vocabulary (B = 80.589,
p < .001, MPB = 89.889 and MC = 9.300) despite the
previously mentioned higher BOY Vocabulary scores for
children in the contemporary classroom. The interaction
between condition and time approaches signicance for
Comprehension of Informational Text (B = 46.289, p =
.061, MPB = 89.889 and MC = 43.600), as does Algebraic
Thinking B = 26.111, p = .059, MPB = 102.800 and MC
= 31.000). This suggests that these scores may differ in
meaningful ways over time between the play-based and
contemporary classrooms, though this nding is not
signicant at the conventional α = .05 level. These are
key ndings for the DiD analysis, indicating that the play-
based condition had a stronger impact on growth over time
across multiple variables, while the signicant positive
interaction coefcient suggests that students in the play-
based classroom improved more from pretest to posttest
compared to students in the contemporary classroom.
Covariates. The covariate analyses revealed several
signicant relationships between the covariates (age, race,
gender, and FRPL status) and various outcomes across the
domains of reading, math, and executive function. Age was
a signicant covariate for multiple outcomes where each
statistically signicant unstandardized coefcient (B)
value suggests a predictive improvement of that many
points for every monthly increase in age. For example,
Overall Reading scores (B = 3.818, p = .002) increased
almost four points for every month older a child was.
Phonics (B = 5.692, p = .008), Vocabulary (B = 4.961, p
= .011), Overall Math (B = 2.329, p = .005), Measurement
and Data (B = 2.962, p = .012), and Geometry (B = 3.491,
p = .001) scores all indicate that older students tended to
perform better in these areas. Age was also approaching
signicance suggesting a potential positive effect of age
on Comprehension of Informational Text (B = 3.491, p =
.094) and Number and Operation (B = 1.716, p = .074),
scores, though these results are not signicant at the
traditional α = .05 level. It is important to note that children
in the play-based classroom were slightly older at BOY
(MPB = 66.67 months) than children in the contemporary
classroom (Mc = 66.67 months), but there were no
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 89 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
statistically signicant differences in age between the two
classrooms, t(52.855) = -.519, p = .606. See Table 3 for
a complete reporting of mean scores at both time points
across variables disaggregated by covariate.
Gender was signicant for Task Monitoring (B = 4.648,
p = .037), with male students demonstrating better task
monitoring skills (i.e., lower scores; BOY MBoy = 47.36,
MGirl = 52.12, EOY MBoy = 47.64, MGirl = 53.24). Gender
approaches signicance for both Inhibit (B = 5.978, p =
.085, BOY MBoy = 47.00, MGirl = 52.18, EOY MBoy =
47.91, MGirl = 54.47) and Behavior Regulation Index (B =
5.305, p = .100, BOY MBoy = 48.09, MGirl = 52.47, EOY
MBoy = 48.73, MGirl = 54.47) scores, and while gender
is not a signicant predictor, the positive Self-Monitor
coefcient (B = 3.450, p = .173) suggests a potential trend
where gender may be associated with higher scores (BOY
MBoy = 49.82, MGirl = 52.12, EOY MBoy = 49.73, MGirl
= 53.47), but this requires further exploration. Of these
four executive function variables, three can be grouped
together as Inhibit and Self-Monitoring are the two sub-
skills measured by the categorical Behavior Regulation
Index value whereas Task Monitoring falls under the
Cognitive Regulation Index category. Again, there are
no statistically different proportions of male and female
students by classroom condition as determined by a chi-
square test for homogeneity, p = .935, nor were there any
statistically different proportions of racial or ethnic student
compositions by classroom condition, p = .129.
Race/Ethnicity was signicant for Receptive Vocabulary
(B = -5.684, p = .045), indicating that race had a meaningful
effect on vocabulary performance suggesting children in
this sample from certain racial groups scored signicantly
lower on PPVT-4 raw scores compared to others.
Specically, the mean scores at pre- (MAsian = 356.00,
MHispanic = 399.33, MWhite = 367.39, and MBlack =
331.00) and posttest (MAsian = 458.00, MHispanic =
435.33, MWhite = 427.00, and MBlack = 437.67) suggest
on average the three Black students had lower mean
Vocabulary scores at pretest, but they also had the largest
mean change score at 106.67 points. A difference, even
one that is statistically signicant, based on three students
should be interpreted cautiously, and no other variables
were signicantly predicted by children’s race or ethnicity
While there was no statistically signicant association
between FRPL status and classroom condition as assessed
by Fisher's exact test, p = .519, FRPL status, serving as
a proxy for students’ socio-economic status, also emerged
as a signicant covariate, particularly for Emotional
Regulation (B = -3.891, p = .022, BOY MFRPL = 55.26,
EOY MFRPL = 55.32, BOY MNon = 46.89, EOY MNon
= 48.56) and Emotional Control (B = -5.042, p = .018,
BOY MFRPL = 57.68, EOY MFRPL = 58.26, BOY
MNon = 48.56, EOY MNon = 50.11), two related scores,
suggesting that students eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch tended to have higher scores in these areas (i.e.,
greater concern). FRPL status, as a covariate, approaches
signicance (B = -2.102, p = .064, BOY MFRPL = 51.42,
EOY MFRPL = 50.37, BOY MNon = 45.33, EOY MNon =
46.67), indicating that students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds (as indicated by FRPL status) may higher
lower Shift scores (i.e., greater concern), but this is not
statistically conrmed. While the negative coefcient
suggests that higher SES (as indicated by FRPL status)
might be associated with slightly lower Phonics scores,
this effect is not statistically signicant (B = -9.553, p =
.114, BOY MFRPL = 354.00, EOY MFRPL = 459.05,
BOY MNon = 349.89, EOY MNon = 430.00). Overall,
these covariate analyses underscore the importance of
demographic factors in students' academic and cognitive
outcomes, although the interpretation of these results
requires thoughtful consideration.
Correlations between outcomes
Due to outliers and non-normal bivariate distributions, a
Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefcient test was used to
evaluate relationships between posttest scores. Signicant
correlations were found for 403 of the possible relationships
at p ≤ .05, 57 at p ≤ .01, and 145 at p < .001. Moderate effect
sizes (.40 < rs < .59) were found in 109 cases, strong effect
sizes (.60 < rs < .79) in 96 cases, and very strong effect sizes
(.80 < rs < 1.0) in 44 cases. All measures of reading (i.e.,
i-Ready scores) were at least moderately correlated with
each other with statistical signicance at p ≤ .05 as were
all measures of math (i.e., i-Ready scores). All measures
of executive function were similarly correlated with each
other. As one might expect like scores to be correlated
with like scores, this is not surprising. What is interesting
is the extent to which student outcome measures were
correlated across academic and executive function scores
(see Table 4). For example, receptive vocabulary did not
consistently correlate strongly with other academic scores
(Comprehension of Literary Text rs = .423, p = .025, Shift
rs = -.402, p = .034), but Vocabulary was signicantly and
at least moderately correlated with both Comprehension
variables, Overall Math and Number and Operation, and
ten of the Executive Function variables including all of the
sub-elements of the Cognitive Regulation Index (-.400 <
rs < -.641, < .001 < p < .014). While no single posttest
variable was signicantly correlated with all other posttest
variables with moderate to very strong effect sizes, all
were correlated with at least some others, and the extent to
which each of these variables is related suggests important
connections. For example, lower executive function
concerns were associated with higher reading and math
outcomes and students who were academically stronger in
one area, tended to also be stronger in others.
90 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024 Research on Preschool and Primary Education
Table 3. Mean Scores at Pretest and Posttest by Condition and Covariate
Receptive
Vocabulary
i-Ready Reading
Overall
Phonological
Awareness Phonic High-Frequency
Words Vocabulary Comprehension:
Literary Text
Comprehension:
Informational
Text
i-Ready Math
Overall
Number &
Operations
Algebraic
Thinking
Measurement &
Data Geometry
BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY
Classroom Condition
Contemporary
(n = 10) 94.20 111.50 350.60 401.40 354.70 429.30 326.10 380.60 314.30 381.80 383.70 393.00 366.50 415.70 373.70 417.30 350.20 384.80 340.50 385.90 345.40 376.40 360.00 387.60 362.30 395.50
Play-Based
(n = 18) 109.83 121.78 373.33 474.22 375.89 473.00 367.44 488.11 363.06 481.94 362.28 452.17 389.17 474.50 389.39 479.28 365.44 412.83 362.50 403.00 362.39 419.50 373.33 418.78 366.83 412.06
Age in Months at BOY
62 (n = 1) 89.00 102.00 294.00 466.00 292.00 451.00 314.00 498.00 314.00 494.00 276.00 447.00 240.00 481.00 322.00 441.00 316.00 408.00 329.00 410.00 309.00 413.00 314.00 399.00 305.00 406.00
63 (n = 2) 110.50 128.50 372.50 465.50 393.50 502.00 337.50 451.50 350.50 454.00 362.50 439.50 409.00 448.00 398.50 504.00 366.50 400.50 370.50 391.50 365.50 411.00 364.00 403.50 364.00 396.00
64 (n = 4) 101.00 113.25 338.25 453.50 348.50 468.50 307.25 449.50 323.50 445.25 322.75 438.50 379.25 465.00 359.50 455.75 358.75 394.50 358.75 385.00 353.75 397.75 371.50 398.25 356.25 400.75
65 (n = 8) 99.00 120.63 369.75 429.13 375.63 448.13 366.88 424.25 357.25 423.13 381.50 402.13 370.50 449.38 372.88 442.00 354.38 401.75 345.88 397.88 353.25 408.25 359.63 402.38 363.63 399.38
66 (n = 2) 96.00 105.00 356.50 396.50 343.50 406.50 336.00 368.50 289.50 391.00 372.00 402.50 412.00 408.00 399.50 404.00 355.00 381.50 338.50 372.50 354.50 366.50 368.50 414.00 367.00 392.50
67 (n = 1) 125.00 135.00 370.00 409.00 362.00 415.00 287.00 397.00 299.00 383.00 456.00 429.00 440.00 416.00 452.00 412.00 363.00 385.00 356.00 401.00 356.00 358.00 388.00 379.00 357.00 407.00
68 (n = 2) 100.00 117.50 356.00 458.50 337.00 467.00 371.50 443.50 315.00 508.00 354.50 418.00 371.00 470.50 393.50 474.50 363.00 410.50 350.50 388.50 358.00 422.50 375.50 418.00 377.00 417.00
70 (n = 4) 108.50 113.50 373.00 449.25 365.25 452.25 367.00 471.50 371.25 455.00 374.75 438.25 381.25 438.50 394.25 441.50 366.50 404.75 355.75 408.75 371.00 397.25 370.75 401.25 376.25 412.75
71 (n = 4) 115.50 124.00 397.25 497.50 412.75 480.50 388.00 523.00 379.50 481.00 401.50 487.25 400.00 484.75 397.75 514.25 374.00 422.50 375.25 409.75 357.75 424.50 389.00 437.00 377.25 424.75
Gender
Male (n = 11) 104.55 120.73 364.00 447.73 374.64 450.55 345.55 456.27 343.55 454.73 376.45 437.91 377.09 450.45 374.91 446.55 360.27 401.00 357.45 394.27 349.73 404.18 370.55 402.45 368.73 406.27
Female (n = 17) 104.06 116.41 366.00 448.53 364.24 461.82 357.29 445.47 347.00 440.65 365.71 426.59 383.65 455.47 389.53 464.00 359.82 404.00 352.82 398.59 360.59 404.06 367.29 411.00 362.94 406.06
Race/Ethnicity
Asian (n = 1) 115.00 119.00 390.00 496.00 375.00 437.00 350.00 581.00 379.00 494.00 356.00 458.00 463.00 479.00 447.00 532.00 366.00 411.00 347.00 416.00 365.00 407.00 381.00 408.00 383.00 411.00
Hispanic (n = 6) 111.33 123.83 373.67 449.67 358.83 447.67 352.83 461.67 367.50 459.50 399.33 435.33 398.33 445.50 382.83 445.33 368.33 406.50 363.67 401.50 366.17 407.67 381.83 409.33 367.17 409.67
White (n = 18) 101.94 118.11 364.94 442.39 373.22 459.94 354.94 433.89 340.83 426.44 367.39 427.00 377.94 453.83 384.61 458.72 356.17 401.28 352.00 394.78 350.50 402.33 363.67 407.72 361.94 404.72
Black (n = 3) 100.33 106.33 341.67 464.33 355.67 468.33 339.67 477.00 319.67 522.00 331.00 437.67 338.00 459.00 359.67 446.33 364.33 402.00 355.00 394.00 368.67 406.67 367.33 403.67 375.00 406.00
FRPL Status
FRPL Eligible
(n = 18) 104.53 115.68 366.21 453.47 366.32 463.21 354.00 459.05 345.58 449.89 367.21 438.89 383.79 455.37 391.16 457.11 359.79 402.79 353.89 399.37 354.26 401.84 371.05 408.74 365.26 404.16
FRPL Non-
Eligible (n = 9) 103.67 123.22 363.11 437.11 372.56 445.11 349.89 430.00 345.78 438.33 375.67 414.44 375.33 449.56 368.22 457.22 360.44 402.89 356.22 391.67 360.67 408.89 363.33 405.33 365.11 410.33
Total Mean
(n = 28) 104.25 118.11 365.21 448.21 368.32 457.39 352.68 449.71 345.64 446.18 369.93 431.04 381.07 453.50 383.79 457.14 360.00 402.82 354.64 396.89 356.32 404.11 368.57 407.64 365.21 406.14
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 91 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
BRIEF2 Global
executive
composite
Behavior
regulation index Inhibit Self-monitor Emotion
regulation index shift Emotional control Cognitive
regulation Index initiate Working memory Planning &
organization Task monitoring Organizing
materials
BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY BOY EOY
Classroom condition
Contemporary
(n = 10) 60.10 65.60 59.90 65.20 56.50 62.80 62.70 65.30 60.60 67.60 60.60 63.80 57.10 65.90 58.00 61.30 53.90 56.60 57.50 60.20 55.10 60.20 62.30 63.40 54.60 59.70
Play-Based
(n = 18) 44.39 43.50 45.67 45.00 46.61 45.83 44.83 44.61 48.11 45.11 43.28 41.06 53.44 49.94 42.78 42.94 45.67 44.61 44.33 45.00 41.72 42.11 43.56 44.17 43.50 42.22
Age in Months at BOY
62 (n = 1) 44.00 42.00 44.00 42.00 46.00 43.00 42.00 42.00 54.00 48.00 45.00 41.00 64.00 56.00 41.00 41.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 43.00 43.00
63 (n = 2) 46.00 44.00 52.00 46.00 53.50 49.00 49.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 41.00 41.00 46.00 48.00 45.00 43.50 50.50 45.50 48.00 45.50 41.00 41.00 45.50 47.50 45.50 43.00
64 (n = 4) 49.25 50.50 49.00 54.25 48.50 52.25 49.50 56.25 53.75 52.50 46.50 45.25 58.50 59.75 47.50 47.75 47.25 46.50 47.00 49.75 47.50 46.75 50.50 48.25 45.75 48.25
65 (n = 8) 49.25 52.50 47.75 49.13 46.63 48.38 49.25 49.88 48.00 50.13 47.25 50.13 49.12 49.25 50.25 54.00 50.00 52.62 50.62 55.63 47.75 52.00 53.13 56.00 47.25 50.13
66 (n = 2) 61.50 73.50 67.50 81.00 65.50 80.50 67.00 75.50 65.00 83.50 64.50 70.00 62.00 85.00 55.00 61.00 50.50 57.00 54.00 55.50 48.00 62.00 66.00 69.50 58.00 58.00
67 (n = 1) 68.00 77.00 69.00 78.00 71.00 78.00 65.00 72.00 74.00 82.00 67.00 67.00 75.00 88.00 62.00 69.00 54.00 60.00 59.00 67.00 58.00 67.00 67.00 67.00 60.00 68.00
68 (n = 2) 44.00 45.00 45.00 49.50 48.50 51.00 41.50 48.00 41.50 44.00 40.50 41.50 44.00 47.00 45.00 44.00 48.50 49.50 47.50 46.00 41.50 41.50 47.50 43.00 43.50 42.00
70 (n = 4) 58.50 53.00 58.75 53.00 54.25 52.50 62.75 53.25 66.75 57.00 63.50 54.75 66.25 57.00 52.25 49.50 52.00 48.00 54.75 50.25 51.75 49.75 51.25 50.50 51.25 50.00
71 (n = 4) 40.00 40.25 41.50 41.75 42.00 41.25 42.25 43.50 44.75 44.00 40.75 40.75 49.50 48.25 39.00 39.50 42.00 40.75 40.00 40.75 40.75 40.25 37.25 39.50 41.50 41.50
Gender
Male (n = 11) 48.36 48.82 48.09 48.73 47.00 47.91 49.82 49.73 52.27 51.73 49.91 47.55 54.82 54.73 46.82 47.73 46.64 47.18 47.55 48.55 46.64 46.55 47.36 47.64 45.27 47.36
Female (n = 17) 51.06 53.06 52.47 54.47 52.18 54.47 52.12 53.47 52.76 54.06 49.18 50.24 54.71 56.24 49.12 50.65 49.88 50.00 50.00 51.65 46.41 49.88 52.12 53.24 48.88 49.18
Race/Ethnicity
Asian (n = 1) 44.00 41.00 48.00 42.00 46.00 43.00 51.00 42.00 48.00 42.00 45.00 41.00 52.00 44.00 41.00 41.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 43.00 43.00
Hispanic (n = 6) 50.83 48.50 49.67 48.83 48.17 47.67 51.83 50.33 58.83 52.17 53.83 47.33 63.17 55.67 47.33 46.50 48.33 44.33 48.33 46.33 47.33 47.17 47.00 48.17 47.33 47.00
White (n = 18) 51.44 54.44 52.72 55.11 52.06 54.83 52.72 54.22 52.22 55.39 49.83 51.56 53.06 57.22 50.00 52.28 49.67 51.33 50.56 53.39 47.50 50.78 53.22 54.39 48.67 50.50
Black (n = 3) 41.67 42.33 42.00 45.00 44.00 45.67 41.00 45.33 43.67 45.33 40.00 41.33 49.00 50.00 41.67 41.67 44.67 45.33 43.33 43.33 40.67 40.67 42.00 40.00 42.00 41.00
FRPL Status
FRPL Eligible
(n = 18) 51.16 53.11 51.74 54.68 51.63 54.58 51.37 53.79 55.26 55.32 51.42 50.37 57.68 58.26 48.47 50.37 48.21 49.79 49.11 51.00 46.68 49.63 51.32 52.11 48.05 48.95
FRPL Non-
Eligible (n = 9) 47.56 47.78 48.67 47.00 47.00 46.22 50.89 48.22 46.89 48.56 45.33 46.67 48.56 50.11 47.67 47.67 49.44 47.00 48.89 49.22 46.11 46.33 48.00 48.78 46.22 47.44
Total Mean
(n = 28) 50.00 51.39 50.75 52.21 50.14 51.89 51.21 52.00 52.57 53.14 49.46 49.18 54.75 55.64 48.21 49.50 48.61 48.89 49.04 50.43 46.50 48.57 50.25 51.04 47.46 48.46
Note. The BRIEF2 evaluates executive function health, and the higher the score, the more increased the degree of executive dysfunction. This is opposite to the academic scores, and scores between 60-64, 65-69, and ≥70 indicate mildly, potentially clinically, and clinically elevated concern (Gioia et
al., 2015).
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 92 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Discussion
The current study seeks to extend prior work (Allee et al.,
2023; Allee-Herndon et al., 2022) by exploring the impact of
pedagogical differences—specically, play-based learning
versus contemporary, teacher-directed instruction—on
the receptive vocabulary, executive functioning, and
academic performance of students in a kindergarten setting
on a larger number of specic pre- and posttest variables
using a DiD approach. The DiD approach was selected as
a thoughtful and effective way to address the sample size
and to simulate the advantages of an experimental design
within this naturalistic context. Given the small sample
and non-randomized nature of the group allocations, a
traditional experimental design was not feasible. However,
the DiD method allows for a robust comparison of changes
over time between the two groups—those in the play-based
classroom and those in the contemporary classroom—by
controlling for pre-existing differences and time-related
effects. By focusing on the differences in trends between
the groups, the DiD analysis effectively isolates the impact
of the pedagogical intervention, minimizing potential
biases from confounding variables. This approach helps
mitigate concerns about the small sample size and non-
random group assignment by leveraging both within-group
and between-group comparisons to simulate the control
provided by a randomized controlled trial. As a result, the
DiD method provides a rigorous means of evaluating the
intervention’s effects in a real-world educational setting.
The ndings highlight several important insights regarding
the role of pedagogy in early childhood development,
especially in the domains of vocabulary, reading, math,
and executive function.
A summary of the results
Main effects of time and condition. The analysis
showed that both groups made signicant progress over
time in key academic domains, particularly in reading and
math. For example, both groups demonstrated signicant
improvements in Phonological Awareness and High-
Frequency Word recognition, consistent with the expected
developmental trajectory for early readers (Ehri, 2005).
However, the time effect was more pronounced in the play-
based classroom, where students exhibited larger gains,
especially in reading comprehension and math operations.
These ndings align with previous research suggesting
that active, playful learning environments foster deeper
engagement and skill acquisition, particularly in early
literacy and numeracy (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). The play-
based classroom also demonstrated signicant advantages
over the contemporary classroom in vocabulary acquisition.
While both groups showed growth, students in the play-
based classroom exhibited substantially higher Vocabulary
scores by the end of the year. This may be due to the
open-ended, exploratory nature of play, which allows for
more opportunities to engage with language in meaningful
contexts (Weisberg et al., 2013).
Interaction effects between condition and time.
Signicant interaction effects were found in areas such
as Vocabulary and Phonics, with the play-based group
showing greater improvements over time compared
to the contemporary group. The interaction effect
for Vocabulary (B = 80.589, p < .001) was particularly
striking. It indicates that both groups began with relatively
similar scores, the play-based group outperformed their
peers over the course of the year. This suggests that the
pedagogical approach not only inuences immediate
outcomes, but also shapes the students' long-term
learning trajectories. The interaction effects in math also
support the idea that playful learning contributes to better
conceptual understanding. For example, in Algebraic
Thinking and Measurement and Data, the play-based
group made greater gains compared to the contemporary
classroom, further highlighting the cognitive benets
of incorporating playful, hands-on learning experiences
(Clements & Sarama, 2014).
Covariate Effects. Covariate analyses provided
additional insight into the role of demographic variables on
student outcomes. Age emerged as a signicant predictor
of performance in several domains, including Receptive
Vocabulary and Math, conrming the importance of
developmental stage for skill acquisition (B = 5.692, p = .002
for phonics; B = 4.961, p = .01 for vocabulary). However,
no signicant age differences were found between the
two classrooms, indicating that the observed pedagogical
effects were not confounded by age-related developmental
differences. Gender and socioeconomic status (indicated
by FRPL status) also played a role in the expression of the
results, particularly in executive functions. For example,
students eligible for FRPL demonstrated higher scores
in Task Monitoring and Cognitive Regulation, which is
consistent with research suggesting that children from
lower-income backgrounds face additional challenges
in executive function development (B = -5.042, p = .018
for task monitoring; Noble et al., 2007). These ndings
highlight the need for targeted interventions that address
both academic and social-emotional needs, particularly for
students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 93 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Table 4. Aggregate Spearman's Rho Correlations of Posttest Variables
Variables (n = 31) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Receptive Vocabulary
1. Receptive Vocabulary – .325 .165 .196 .163 .350 .423* .284 .232 .062 .221 .209 .092 -.182 -.183 -.088 -.242 -.372 -.402* -.231 -.127 -.016 -.028 -.193 -.112 -.117
Reading
2. i-Ready Reading Overall† – .738*** .921*** .752*** .863*** .711*** .765*** .717*** .572** .626*** .432* .459* -.644*** -.521** -.387* -.570** -.495** -.659*** -.310 -.689*** -.520** -.614*** -.730*** -.669*** -.584**
3. Phonological Awareness – .628*** .466* .556** .435* .491** .615*** .618*** .562** .296 .361 -.360 -.259 -.122 -.374 -.274 -.388* -.184 -.407* -.223 -.345 -.428* -.388* -.342
4. Phonics – .764*** .796*** .598*** .653*** .764*** .683*** .666*** .463* .479** -.759*** -.675*** -.566** -.697*** -.546** -.671*** -.350 -.790*** -.657*** -.738*** -.800*** -.743*** -.683***
5. High Frequency Words – .575** .593*** .480** .639*** .433* .567** .449* .395* -.739*** -.639*** -.516** -.674*** -.543** -.627*** -.377* -.748*** -.575** -.680*** -.786*** -.770*** -.696***
6. Vocabulary – .511** .555** .493** .433* .342 .320 .359 -.492** -.400* -.288 -.439* -.331 -.521** -.090 -.597*** -.459* -.532** -.641*** -.564** -.531**
7. Comprehension: Literary Text – .583*** .445* .240 .403* .184 .324 -.452* -.403* -.311 -.430* -.363 -.516** -.249 -.388* -.242 -.322 -.476* -.385* -.304
8. Comprehension: Info. Text – .560** .228 .597*** .385* .347 -.559** -.424* -.343 -.409* -.497** -.628*** -.374* -.557** -.498** -.484** -.594*** -.565** -.414*
Math
9. i-Ready Math Overall† – .786*** .897*** .737*** .680*** -.749*** -.679*** -.546** -.721*** -.658*** -.663*** -.516** -.722*** -.537** -.665*** -.677*** -.718*** -.485**
10. Number & Operations – .580** .419* .505** -.472* -.449* -.361 -.486** -.368 -.336 -.313 -.444* -.318 -.422* -.368 -.436* -.252
11. Algebraic Thinking – .662*** .488** -.719*** -.662*** -.546** -.706*** -.640*** -.674*** -.497** -.688*** -.555** -.622*** -.658*** -.659*** -.558**
12. Measurement & Data – .423* -.552** -.507** -.382* -.529** -.593*** -.571** -.462* -.498** -.320 -.452* -.455* -.513** -.330
13. Geometry – -.414* -.350 -.308 -.322 -.216 -.167 -.167 -.452* -.387* -.477* -.431* -.440* -.181
Executive Function
14. Global Executive Composite‡ – .953*** .895*** .937*** .818*** .807*** .665*** .946*** .855*** .878*** .919*** .938*** .791***
15. Behavior Regulation Index† – .960*** .965*** .820*** .744*** .706*** .853*** .802*** .777*** .815*** .832*** .762***
16. Inhibit – .878*** .756*** .640*** .706*** .792*** .843*** .743*** .742*** .744*** .728***
17. Self-Monitor – .833*** .784*** .686*** .851*** .729*** .761*** .831*** .825*** .749***
18. Emotional Regulation Index† – .888*** .922*** .687*** .573** .572** .658*** .667*** .642***
19. Shift – .700*** .735*** .586** .602*** .737*** .727*** .653***
20. Emotional Control – .491** .454* .401* .439* .464* .471*
21. Cognitive Regulation Index† – .913*** .968*** .983*** .962*** .846***
22. Initiate – .917*** .879*** .837*** .822***
23. Working Memory – .942*** .903*** .802***
24. Planning & Organization – .941*** .851***
25. Task Monitoring – .766***
26. Organizing Materials –
Note.† = Overall Score (with sub-scores underneath). ‡ = Overall Composite Score (with sub-scores underneath, including relevant Overall Scores). * = Correlation is signicant at p ≤ .05 (2-tailed). ** = Correlation is signicant at p ≤ .01 (2-tailed). *** = Correlation is signicant at p < .001 (2-tailed).
Bolded = .40-.59 “moderate,” .60-.79 “strong,” and .80-1.0 “very strong” correlations. Info = Informational.a
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 94 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Implications
Researchers widely accept that experiments with a
randomized controlled trial design are the "gold standard"
of research (Hariton & Locascio, 2018), and quasi-
experimental, naturalistic studies such as the one presented
here are not sufcient because they do not use randomized
selection or allocation and do not even necessarily use a
carefully designed, evidence-based intervention. Even
when they do, however, it is notoriously difcult to affect
teacher practices and harder still to see effects on student
outcomes (Korest & Carlson, 2022; Warmbold-Brann
et al., 2017). The reality in most of the US is that state,
district, and school-based educational decision-makers or
leaders are reluctant to allow children who are identied
as academically at-risk to play because they believe that
playful learning and academic rigor aligned to instructional
standards are mutually exclusive. The rarity of play-based
instruction in Title I schools in the US, coupled with the
challenges to access classrooms for research that has only
increased since the COVID-19 pandemic (Greenberg,
2004, 2010; Waechter et al., 2023), meant that certain
challenges had to be accepted in order to proceed with
the study. Despite these challenges (i.e., the principal’s
decision to place the most advanced entering kindergarten
students into one class, having only two classrooms
for comparison with a small sample size, and district
restrictions on the curriculum teachers were allowed to
use), it is not hyperbolic to say the results are incredibly
exciting and reinforce prior empirical results.
Alignment with prior studies. This study employed
the use of specic assessment instruments for assessing
executive function, language and literacy (i.e., reading),
and math to generate explicit and realistic results aligned
with a schoolied culture and illustrates the challenges in
nding public Title I kindergartens using playful learning
approaches. The ndings from this study align with extant
literature describing:
● the increased academization of kindergarten and the
decrease in play (Bailey et al., 2019; Bassok et al., s 2016;
Pyle et al., 2018; Repko-Erwin, 2017),
● the connections between school readiness and academic
achievement (Blair & Raver, 2016: Madrick, 2020; Roos
et al., 2019),
● and the potential for active, playful learning pedagogical
approaches—in conjunction with standards-aligned
instruction and assessment—to yield improved outcomes
for children (Allee et al., 2023; King & Newstead, 2021;
Pyle et al., 2018), particularly in a world still recovering
from the COVID-19 pandemic (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2024).
Statistically signicant correlations between the
dependent variables and classroom conditions explained
the greater growth rates in the playful learning classroom.
These ndings add to the scholarship on instructional
practices that build executive function skills and academic
achievement, especially for vulnerable children (Allee-
Herndon & Roberts, 2019). We understand increasingly
that adversity often delays the development of skills
critical to school readiness and academic achievement,
and we recognize that pre-existing economically driven,
systemic, and other adversity-related disparities at
kindergarten entry often widen throughout a child’s K-12
experience (Allee-Herndon et al., 2022; Bailey et al., 2019;
Gilkerson et al., 2018; Mazzocco & Claessens, 2020). It
is critical to address delays in the development of skills
crucial for school readiness and academic achievement to
mitigate these disparities and close these opportunity gaps
(Allee-Herndon et al., 2022; Bailey et al., 2019; Gilkerson
et al., 2018; Mazzocco & Claessens, 2020).
The curriculum and the pedagogy. Some curricula
or interventions have been shown to have statistically
signicant effects on young children’s outcomes,
particularly those students experiencing economic
disadvantage and other threats to development. For
example, a 2019 systematic literature review (Allee-
Herndon & Roberts) identied eight experimental or
quasi-experimental studies that explored interventions
designed to improve the executive function of children
experiencing poverty or economic instability. Three of
the studies analyzed curricular interventions: Head Start
REDI and Preschool PATHS (Bierman et al., 2008),
Incredible Years (Webster-Stratton et al., 2008), and Tools
of the Mind (Blair & Raver, 2014). Since the systematic
literature review, more evidence has been published
supporting particular curricula (Incredible Years; Korest
& Carlson, 2022) and pedagogical approaches like active,
playful learning (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2016; Nesbitt
et al., 2023) to push back against the schoolication of early
childhood education. Each of these curricula, generally,
employs the active, playful learning philosophies of
blending what scientists have learned about how and what
children need to learn.
The executive team of the Active, Playful Learning!
Project (n.d.) explained that children learn the 6Cs
(Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2016; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020)
through meaningful, joyful, socially interactive, active,
engaging, and iterative learning experiences aligned
with learning goals (Nesbitt et al., 2023). This evidence
for these innovative, playful approaches is compelling,
yet scripted curricula, such as those used in these two
study classrooms, are often required of US kindergarten
teachers, and the option to select a different curriculum
such as Tools of the Mind, for example, is not available
to most kindergarten teachers. This is partly why the
results from this study and from similar, albeit much more
experimental and larger-scaled work (the Active, Playful
Learni ng! Project) is so exciting. This via media approach
of using guided or purposeful play, initiated and designed
by skillful teachers to meet specic learning goals but
enacted upon by children, allows learning to be both
joyful and rigorous without requiring the purchase of any
new, packaged materials.
While this study was US-based, the challenges US
kindergarten teachers have been facing in recent years
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 95 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
seem to have only become more difcult and are certainly
not exclusive to the US. The perception that play and
rigor are mutually exclusive (Bassok et al., 2016; Dealey
& Stone, 2018; Nitecki & Chung, 2013; Pyle et al., 2018)
complicates cultural shifts in US education, though many
countries prioritize both play and assessment (Allee
et al., 2023; King & Newstead, 2021; Pyle et al., 2018;
Sy nod i, 2010). The signicant differences found in this
study encourage further exploration of playful learning
pedagogy alongside academic standards (Allee-Herndon
et al., 2022) to impact a broad spectrum of child outcomes.
Addressing the unmet goals of past decades, play,
which has been dismissed in the name of standardizing
assessment outcomes, could help close adversity-related
gaps (Prioletta & Pyle, 2017; Sharkins et al., 2017; Walker
et al., 2020; White et al., 2021). Understanding how to
support this balanced approach is crucial, especially post-
COVID-19, where didactic instruction has increased for
many marginalized students (Donnelly & Patrinos, 2021;
Dorn et al., 2020; Engzell et al., 2021).
Presenting a model for future studies. Decades of
research in the science of learning and development
have built upon and validated Vygotsky’s (1978) social
constructivist learning theory. "Humans learn best
when they can be active and engaged in learning that is
meaningful, socially interactive, iterative, and joyful"
(Nesbitt et al., 2023, How We Learn section), particularly
when they are lear ning the skills necessary for success
across the lifespan (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2016; Hirsh-
Pasek et al., 2020). Playful learning supports healthy
development in all domains because it is more engaging,
mentally active, collaborative, culturally connective,
content-rich, and creative compared to contemporary
practices, which are often passive, didactic, isolated, and
boring. Given these benets, one might assume that it
would be an easy decision to ensure that all children learn
this way, especially those who are considered to be at risk
academically or otherwise. However, as discussed in the
background section, this is not the case. In the US, it is
often the children who are believed to be sufciently high-
performing who are allowed to engage in playful learning,
much like in Teacher A’s classroom. In contrast, "at-risk"
children are more likely to lose play or playful learning
opportunities due to behavioral infractions, academic
deciencies, or other perceived gaps. While the evidence
is clear that play supports learning (Bailey et al., 2019;
Blinkoff et al., 2023; Colliver et al., 2022; DeLuca et al.,
2020; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2024),
educational stakeholders require even more evidence
to trust that play is not mutually exclusive to rigorous
learning; in fact, play is rigorous learning.
Fortunately, the empirical literature on the benets
of active, playful learning for children’s outcomes (e.g.,
cognitive, affective, behavioral) is growing. A search of
the ERIC database using the terms "purposeful play or
playful learning or active playful learning or guided play
or play pedagogy" and "kindergarten or primary school
or elementary school learning," yielded 75 empirical,
full-text, peer-reviewed articles on play since 2002, when
No Child Left Behind was passed. Our work to develop
an evidence base with which to convince skeptical
educational policy makers or leaders, while nascent, is
emerging. This study, particularly with the more nuanced
analysis of subscales on each valid and reliable assessment
and across academic and cognitive domains, adds to the
existing and growing evidence base that play effectively
supports children’s learning, particularly those who
may need extra support to build their 6Cs and academic
capacity (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2016; Hirsh-Pasek et
al., 2020; Nesbitt et al., 2023). Much more work remains to
be done, however, particularly to determine more precisely
the specic playful learning curricular, environmental, or
pedagogical components or factors that are most likely to
yield positive outcomes for children.
Limitations and future directions
Although the results of this study provide compelling
evidence in favor of play-based learning, there are several
limitations to note. First, the sample size was relatively
small (n = 28), which may limit the generalizability of
the ndings. Additionally, although age was controlled
for in the analysis, other unmeasured factors such as
classroom environment or teacher experience could have
inuenced the results. While the DiD analysis mitigated
these limitations, it is unlikely that these approaches
completely removed selection bias. Teacher A was likely
able to play despite the district requirements for explicit,
didactic, direct instruction because of her longer tenure
at the school and because those students began the school
year with an academic advantage, lowering their perceived
"risk". Teacher effects outside of the pedagogical approach
(e.g., personality, connections to students, professional
training) may also have inuenced the difference in
outcomes by classroom condition. The successful use of
a playful learning approach in kindergartens is predicated
on leveraging high-quality learning environments and
interactions (Pyle et al., 2018), but the observational and
environmental data collected were limited in measuring
teacher and classroom quality and were not formally
included in this analysis. Analyzing this data more deeply,
and using similar observational scales (the Classroom
Assessment Scoring System; Pianta et al., 2008 and the
Play Observation Scale; Rubin, 2001) would add nuance
to our understanding of how environmental factors and
teacher and student behaviors may also contribute to
improved student outcomes. Future studies should aim for
larger sample sizes and experimental designs with random
selection and assignment while maintaining an analytical
focus on multi-domain outcomes as in this study.
Futu r e re s e a r ch should al s o ai m to re pl i c a t e th e s e n d i n g s
with larger, more diverse samples and explore the potential
moderating effects of teacher-student interactions. In
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
96 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
addition, Spearman's Rank Correlation analysis revealed
strong associations between posttest measures of reading,
math, and executive functions, suggesting that these skills
may develop together. A closer examination of these
relationships in future studies could provide valuable
insights into how the different domains of learning
support one another in early childhood. In addition to what
has already been considered, it is important that future
research better operationalize the elements of playful
learning and contemporary classrooms in elementary
schools as most of the research has been conducted in
preschools (i.e., typically for non-compulsory programs
in the US for children ages 3–5, with varying attendance
patterns). Using other assessments of academic
achievement in reading, math, and executive function
may also inuence future study outcomes and should be
explored as different dependent variables may also shed
light on the appropriateness of specic measures to assess
academic achievement aligned with academic standards.
Further exploration in hyper-academic, schoolied US
kindergartens is warranted. Dening elements of playful
learning and contemporary classrooms in elementary
schools, using varied assessments, and exploring different
dependent variables could provide deeper insights.
Conclusion
Despite limitations, the results support expanding studies
on play for positive child outcomes (Fitzpatrick et al.,
2014; Moreno et al., 2017; Raver et al., 2011; Skibbe
et al., 2019). These studies connect playful learning
pedagogy to improved academic and executive function
outcomes (Gimbert et al., 2019; Meixner et al., 2019;
Morgan et al., 2019), but it is probable using a playful
learning, via media approach may also be helpful to
reduce externalizing behaviors (e.g., discipline referrals,
suspensions, absenteeism) and improve children’s
social-emotional skills (e.g., pro-social behaviors,
cooperation, approaches to learning; Allee-Herndon et
al., 2019). These would be desirable outcomes that may
be connected to a more developmentally appropriate,
child-centered, constructivist, and playful approach using
the via media maxim (Allee et al., 2023). We know there
are multiple threats to vulnerable, marginalized children,
and disproportionate inequities in life and education have
long-reaching impacts (Chetty et al., 2011; Dodge et al.,
2015; Gimbert et al., 2019; Meixner et al., 2019; Morgan
et al., 2019; Nesbitt et al., 2019; Skibbe et al., 2019). It is
insufcient to understand these connections without also
knowing more about effective strategies to mitigate the
risks and threats to reducing inequality in our schools.
Overall, this study provides compelling evidence of
the benets of play-based learning in early childhood
education. The signicant main and interaction effects for
vocabulary, reading, and math underscore the importance
of creating a learning environment that encourages active,
meaningful engagement with content. Additionally, the
ndings highlight the need to address the social-emotional
needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, as
evidenced by the covariate effects related to FRPL status. By
integrating playful learning strategies into the classroom,
educators can better support the holistic development of
young learners. A playful learning, via media approach to
learning may reduce externalizing behaviors and improve
social-emotional skills while simultaneously supporting
increased academic outcomes compared to contemporary,
schoolied approaches. Addressing threats to marginalized
children and reducing educational inequities requires
effective strategies, and further research is needed to
mitigate these risks to achieve equity, and joyful learning,
in schools.
Conicts of interest
The authors declare no conicts of interest.
References
Active playful learning. (n.d.). Active Playful
Learning. https://activeplayfullearning.com.
Agorastos, A., Pervanidou, P., Chrousos, G. P., &
Baker, D. G. (2019). Developmental trajectories
of early life stress and trauma: a narrative review
on neurobiological aspects beyond stress system
dysregulation. Frontiers in psychiatry, 118. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.0018
American Institutes for Research (2020). i-Ready®
Diagnostic Reading. https://charts.
intensiveintervention.org/screening/
tool/?id=7534542c4f422f85.
Ansari, A., & Gottfried, M. A. (2020). Early childhood
educational experiences and preschool absenteeism.
The Elementary School Journal, 121(1), 34–51.
https://doi.org/10.1086/709832
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular
control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational
Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X07306523.
Allee, K. A., Clark, M. H., Roberts, S. K., & Hu, B. Y.
(2023). Exploring play, executive function, and
academic achievement in two Title I kindergartens.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 37(2),
197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2022.213
9784.
Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2019). Poverty,
self-regulation and executive function, and learning
in K-2 classrooms: A systematic literature review of
current empirical research. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education, 33(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02568543.2019.1613273.
97 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 97 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2021). The
power of purposeful play in primary grades: Adjusting
pedagogy for children’s needs and academic gains.
Journal of Education, 201(1), 54–63. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022057420903272.
Allee-Herndon, K. A., Roberts, S. K., Hu, B. Y., Clark, M.
H., & Stewart, M. L. (2022). Let’s talk play! Exploring
the possible benets of play-based pedagogy on
language and literacy learning in Title I kindergarten
classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal,
50(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-
01141-6.
Allee-Herndon, K. A., Taylor, D. D., & Roberts, S.
K. (2019). Putting play in its place: Presenting a
continuum to decrease mental health referrals and
increase purposeful play in classrooms. International
Journal of Play, 8(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.108
0/21594937.2019.1643993.
Bailey, R., & Jones, S. M. (2019). An integrated model
of regulation for applied settings. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 22(1), 2–23. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10567-019-00288-y.
Bailey, R., Meland, E. A., Brion-Meisels, G., & Jones, S.
M. (2019). Getting developmental science back into
schools: Can what we know about self-regulation help
change how we think about “No Excuses”? Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, Article 1885. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01885.
Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A., (2016). Is
kindergarten the new rst grade? AERA Open, 1(4),
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415616358.
Bishop, P. A., Downes, J. M., Netcoh, S., Farber, K.,
DeMink-Carthew, J., Brown, T., & Mark, R. (2020).
Teacher roles in personalized learning environments.
The Elementary School Journal, 121(2), 311–336.
https://doi.org/10.1086/711079.
Blair, C. (2016). Developmental science and
executive function. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 25(1), 3–7. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963721415622634.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement
gap through modication of neurocognitive and
neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster
randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach
to the education of children in kindergarten. PLOS
One, 9(11), 1–13, e112393. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0112393.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and
self-regulation: a developmental psychobiological
approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(2015),
711–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-010814-015221.
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2016). Poverty, stress, and brain
development: New directions for prevention and
intervention. Academic Pediatrics, 16(3): S30–S36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.010.
Blinkoff, E., Fletcher, K., Wright, C., Espinoza, S., &
Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2023, October 9). Commentary:
Tracking the winds of change on the American
education policy landscape: the emergence of play-
based learning legislation and its implications for the
classroom. The Brookings Institution. https://www.
brookings.edu/articles/tracking-the-winds-of-change-
on-the-american-education-policy-landscape-the-
emergence-of-play-based-learning-legislation-and-its-
implications-for-the-classroom.
Brown, C. P., & Lan, Y.-C. (2015). A qualitative
metasynthesis comparing U.S. teachers’ conceptions of
school readiness prior to and after the implementation
of NCLB. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.012.
Brown, C. P., Englehardt, J., Ku, D. H., & Barry, D. P.
(2019). "Where’s the joy in the classroom?" Families’
sensemaking of the changed kindergarten. The
Elementary School Journal, 120(2), 319–346. https://
doi.org/10.1086/705964.
Brownell, M. D., Nickel, N. C., Chateau, D., Martens,
P. J., Taylor, C., Crockett, L., Katz, A., Sarkar, J.,
Burland, E., Goh, C. Y., & the PATHS Equity Team.
(2015). Long-term benets of full-day kindergarten:
A longitudinal population-based study. Early Child
Development and Care, 185(2), 291–316. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03004430.2014.913586.
Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Steinberg, L., Crosnoe,
R., Friedman, S. L., McLoyd, V., Pianta, R., &
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network.
(2011). Examining the Black-White achievement
gap among low-income children using the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
Child Development, 82(5), 1404–1420. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01620.x.
Center on Educational Policy. (2007). Answering the
question that matters most: Has student achievement
increased since No Child Left Behind? Center on
Educational Policy.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hilger, N., Saez, E.,
Schanzenbach, D. W., & Yagan, D. (2011). How does
your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings?
Evidence from Project Star. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Oxford University Press, 126(4), 1593–
1660. https://doi.org/10.1093.qje/qjr041.
Chiatovich, T., & Stipek, D. (2016). Instructional
approaches in kindergarten: What works for whom?
The Elementary School Journal, 117(1), 1–29. https://
doi.org/10.1086/687751.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning trajectories:
Foundations for effective, research-based education.
In A. P. Maloney, J. Confrey, & K. H. Nguyen
(Eds.), Learning over time: Learning trajectories in
mathematics education (pp. 1–30). IAP Information
Age Publishing.
Coldren, J. T. (2013). Cognitive control predicts academic
achievement in kindergarten children. Mind, Brain,
and Education, 7(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
98 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
mbe.12006.
Colliver, Y., Harrison, L. J., Brown, J. E., & Humburg,
P. (2022). Free play predicts self-regulation years
later: Longitudinal evidence from a large Australian
sample of toddlers and preschoolers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 59, 148–161. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.11.011.
Curran, F. C. (2017). Income-based disparities in
early elementary school science achievement. The
Elementary School Journal, 118(2), 207–231. https://
eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162543.
Curriculum Associates (n.d.). i-Ready Diagnostic and
Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) Linking Study
Overview. https://www.curriculumassociates.com/-/
media/mainsite/files/i-ready/linking-studies/iready-
diagnostic-assessments-linking-study-overview-
orida-2018.pdf?la=en&hash=6F65D84B0A896CBE
CE03C8B93E05CE61.
Curriculum Associates. (2018). i-Ready Scale Score
Placement Tables (2018-2019 School Year). https://
www.esboces.org/cms/lib/NY01914091/Centricity/
Domain/533/iready-placement-tables-2018-2019.pdf.
de Bilde, J., Boonen, T., Speybroeck, S., De Fraine, B., Van
Damme, J., Goos, M. (2015). Experiential education
in kindergarten: Associations with school adjustment
and the moderating role of initial achievement. The
Elementary School Journal, 116(2), 173–197. https://
doi.org/10.1086/683802.
Dealey, R. P., & Stone, M. H. (2017). Exploring out-
of-school play and educational readiness. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 46(2), 201–208. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0849-7.
Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs.
discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3),
384–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20194.
Dee, T. S., Jacob, B., & Schwartz, N. L. (2013). The
effects of NCLB on school resources and practices.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2),
252–279. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712467080.
DeLuca, C., Pyle, A., & Valiquette, A., & LaPointe-
McEwan, D. (2020). New directions for kindergarten
education: Embedding assessment in play-based
learning. The Elementary School Journal, 120(3),
455–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/707008.
Dodge, K. A., Bierman, K. L., Cole, J. D., Greenberg, M.
T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., & Pinderhughes,
E. E. (2015). Impact of early intervention on
psychopathology, crime, and well-being at age 25.
The American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(1), 59–70.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13060786.
Donnelly, R., & Patrinos, H. A. (2021). Learning loss during
COVID-19: An early systematic review. Prospects,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09582-6.
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E.
(2020). COVID-19 and learning loss—disparities
grow and students need help. McKinsey &
Company, December, 8, 6–7. https://wasaoly.org/
WASA/images/WASA/5.0%20Professional%20
Development/4.2%20Conference%20Resources/
Winter/2021/covid-19-and-learning-loss-disparities-
grow-and-students-need-help-v3.pdf.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M., (2007). Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Pearson Assessments.
Education Commission of the States. (2024). 50-state
comparison: State K-3 policies. https://www.ecs.
org/50-state-comparison-state-k-3-policies-2023/.
Egger, F., Benzing, V., Conzelmann, A., & Schmidt, M.
(2019). Boost your brain, while having a break! The
effects of long-term cognitively engaging physical
activity breaks on children’s executive functions
and academic achievement. PLoS One, 14(3),
1–20, e02124882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0212482.
Ellwood-Lowe, M. E., Sacchet, M. D., & Gotlib, I. H.,
(2016). The application of neuroimaging to social
inequity and language disparity: A cautionary
examination. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience,
December (22), 1–8. https://doi.org./10.1016/j.
dcn.2016.10.001.
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning
loss due to school closures during the COVID-19
pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 118(17), e2022376118. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.202237611.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading:
Phases and ndings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme
(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp.
135–154). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
Fitzpatrick, C., McKinnon, R. D., Blair, C. B., &
Willoughby, M. T. (2014). Do preschool executive
function skills explain the school readiness gap
between advantaged and disadvantaged children?
Learning and Instruction, 30(April), 25–31. https://
doi.org/j.learninginstruc.2013.11.003.
Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1984). Direct instruction
mathematics: A longitudinal evaluation of low-income
elementary school students. The Elementary School
Journal, 84(4), 395–407. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/1001366 .
Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Warren, S. F., Oller, D. K.,
Russo, R., & Vohr, B. (2018). Language experience in
the second year of life predicts language outcomes in
late childhood. Pediatrics, 142(4), e20174276. https://
doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-4276.
Gimbert, F., Camos, V., Gentaz, E., & Mazens, K.
(2019). What predicts mathematics achievement?
Developmental change in 5- and 7-year-old
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
178(February), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jecp.2018.09.013.
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy,
L. (2015). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
99 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
Function, Second Edition (BRIEF2) Professional
Manual. PAR.
Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Becoming
brilliant: What science tells us about raising successful
children. American Psychological Association.
Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in
school-based prevention: The researcher perspective.
Prevention Science, 5, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1023/
B:PREV.0000013976.84939.55.
Greenberg, M. T. (2010). School-based prevention: Current
status and future challenges. Effective Education, 2(1),
27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415531003616862.
Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E. C., Perper, K., Wandner, L.
D., & Whittaker, J. V. (2009, June). Disparities in
early learning and development: Lessons from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort
(ECLS-B). Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.
org/publications/disparities-in-early-learning-and-
development-lessons-from-the-early-childhood-
longitudinal-study-birth-cohort-ecls-b.
Hariton, E., & Locascio, J. J. (2018). Randomised
controlled trials–The gold standard for effectiveness
research. BJOG: An International Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 125(13), 1716–1716.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15199.
Harms, T., Jacobs, E. V., & White, D. R. (2013). School-Age
Care Environment Rating Scale Updated (SACERS)
(Updated ed.). Teachers College Press.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Accountability shovedown: Resisting
the standards movement in early childhood education.
The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 457–462. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/20440167.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer,
D. G. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in
preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford University
Press.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hadani, H., Blinkoff, E., & Golinkoff, R.
M. (2020). A new path to education reform: Playful
learning promotes 21st century skills in school and
beyond. The Brookings Institution. https://www.
brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/a-new-path-to-
education-reform-playful-learningpromotes-21st-
century-skills-in-schools-and-beyond/.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Masters, A. S., Christie, S., Gibbs, H.
M., Evans, N. S., Fletcher, K. K., Pesch, A., Yang, H.,
Fan, W., Todaro, R. D., Golinkoff, R. M., & Xu, F.
(2022). Where global science meets playful learning:
Implications for home, school, and city planning
[White paper]. The Lego Foundation and the Yidan
Foundation. https://learningthroughplay.com/explore-
the-research/where-global-science-meets-playful-
learning-implications-for-home-school-cities-and-
digital-spaces.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Winthrop, R., & Shah, S. (2024, May 2).
Commentary: Why play is serious work. The Brookings
Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-
play-is-serious-work/ .
Hu, B., Fan. X., Leong, S. S. L., and Li, K. (2015). Why
is group teaching so important to Chinese children's
development? Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 40(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10./1177/1836
93911504000102.
Improving America’s Schools Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
(1994).
Iruka, I. U., Sheridan, S., Koziol, N., Schumacher, R.,
Kerby, H., Prokasky, A., & Choi, D. (2022). Examining
malleable factors that explain the end-of-kindergarten
racial/ethnic gaps. The Elementary School Journal,
122(3), 378–410. https://doi.org/10.1086/718072.
King, P. & Newstead, S. (Eds.) (2021). Further
perspectives on researching play from a playwork
perspective: Process, playfulness, rights-based and
critical reection. Routledge.
Korest, R., & Carlson, J. S. (2021). A meta-analysis of the
current state of evidence of the Incredible Years Teacher
Classroom Management program. Children (Basel),
9(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010024.
Koslouski, J. B., & Stark, K. (2021). Promoting learning
for students experiencing adversity and trauma: The
everyday, yet profound, actions of teachers. The
Elementary School Journal, 121(3), 430–453. https://
doi.org/10.1086/712606.
Lee, P., & Bierman, K. L. (2016). Proles of kindergarten
classroom and elementary school contexts: Associations
with rst-grade outcomes of children transitioning
from Head Start. The Elementary School Journal,
117(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1086/687813.
Lund, E. (2020). The relation between vocabulary
knowledge and phonological awareness in children
with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 63(7), 2386–2402. htttps://doi.
org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00259.
Madrick, J. (2020). Invisible Americans: The tragic cost of
child poverty. Alfred A. Knopf.
Mazzocco, M., & Claessens, A. (2020). Introduction to the
special issue: Parents supporting early mathematical
thinking. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50,
1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.07.007.
McDonald, P. (2018). Observing, planning, guiding:
How an intentional teacher meets standards through
play. Young Children, 73(1). https://www.naeyc.
org/resources/pubs/yc/mar2018/observing-planning-
guiding.
McDowell, K., Carroll, J., & Ziolkowski, R. (2013).
Relations between phonological awareness and
vocabulary in preschoolers. International Journal of
Liberal Arts and Social Science, 1(2), 75–84. https://
ijlass.org/data/frontImages/October2013/8.pdf.
Meixner, J. M., Warner, G. J., Lensing, N., Schiefele, U., &
Elsner, B. (2019). The relationship between executive
functions and reading comprehension in primary-
school students: A cross-lagged-panel analysis. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 46(1), 62–74. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.010.
100 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024 Research on Preschool and Primary Education
Milner, A. R., Sondergeld, T. A., Demir, A., Johnson, C.
C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2017). Elementary teachers’
beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice:
An examination of pre/post NCLB testing in science.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 111–
132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9230-7.
Moreno, A. J., Shwayder, I., & Friedman, I. D. (2016).
The function of executive function: Everyday
manifestations of regulated thinking in preschool
settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2),
143–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0777-y.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Wang, Y., Hillemeier, M. M., Oh,
Y., & Maczuga, S. (2019). Executive function decits
in kindergarten predict repeated academic difculties
across elementary school. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly,46(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2018.06.009.
Morgan, P. L., Li, H., Farkas, G., Cook, M., Pun, W. H.,
& Hillemeier, M. M. (2017). Executive functioning
decits increase kindergarten children’s risk for
reading and mathematics difculties in rst grade.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 23–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.01.004.
Mraz, K., Porcelli, A., & Tyler, C. (2016). Purposeful play:
A teacher's guide to igniting deep and joyful learning
across the day. Heinemann.
Myers, J. M., & Ankrum, J. W. (2018). Explicit vocabulary
instruction in kindergarten: Case studies of students
with and without language disorders. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 46, 683–691. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-018-0896-8.
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
(2021). Developmentally appropriate practice in
early childhood programs serving children from birth
through age 8 (S. Friedman, B. L. Wright, M. L.
Masterson, B. Willer, & S. Bredekamp, Eds.; 4th ed.).
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014).
Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success
for all.
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences Education, Center for Education,
Board on Science Education, & Kindergarten Through
Eighth Grade Committee on Science Learning.
(2007). Taking science to school: Learning and
teaching science in grades K-8 (A. W. Shouse, H.
A. Schweingruber, & R. A. Duschl, Eds.; 1st ed.).
National Academies Press.
Nesbitt, K. T., Blinkoff, E., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-
Pasek, K. (2023). Making schools work: An equation
for active playful learning. Theory Into Practice, 62(2:
Creative Arts, Physical Activity, and Children’s Play
in Early Childhood), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00405841.2023.2202136.
Nesbitt, K. T., Fuhs, M. W., & Farran, D. C. (2019).
Stability and instability in the co-development of
mathematics, executive function skills, and visual-
motor integration from prekindergarten to rst grade.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46(1), 262–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.003.
Nitecki, E., & Chung, M.H. (2013). What is not covered
by the standards: How to support emergent literacy
in preschool classrooms. Language and Literacy
Spectrum, 23, 46–56. https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1005285.pdf.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C.
§ 6319 (2002).
Noble, K. G., McCandliss, B. D., & Farah, M. J.
(2007). Socioeconomic gradients predict individual
differences in neurocognitive abilities. Developmental
Science, 10(4), 464-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-7687.2007.00600.x.
Parker, R., Thomsen, B. S., & Berry, A. (2022). Learning
through play at school – A framework for policy and
practice. Frontiers in Education, 7:751801. https://doi.
org/10.3389/feduc.2022.751801.
Patton M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Piaget, J. (1977). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the
relations between organic regulations and cognitive
processes. University of Chicago Press.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K.
(2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™:
Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Prioletta, J., & Pyle, A. (2017). Play and gender in
Ontario kindergarten classrooms: implications for
literacy learning. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 25(4), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/09
669760.2017.1390446.
Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-
based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based
pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early
Education and Development, 28(3), 274–289. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771.
Pyle, A., Poliszczuk, D., Danniels, E. (2018). The
challenges of promoting literacy integration within a
play-based learning kindergarten program: Teacher
perspectives and implementation. Journal of Research
in Childhood Education, 32(2), 219–233. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/02568543.2017.1416006.
Ranz-Smith, D. J. (2007). Teacher perception of play: In
leaving no child behind are teachers leaving childhood
behind? Early Education and Development, 18(2), 271–
303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701280425.
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F.,
Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP’s impact
on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills:
Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child
Development, 82(1), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x.
Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015). Are
approaches to learning in kindergarten associated with
academic and social competence similarly? Child
and Youth Care Forum, 44(6), 757–776. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10566-015-9307-0.
Research on Preschool and Primary Education 101 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Repko-Erwin, M. E. (2017). Was kindergarten left behind?
Examining US kindergarten as the new rst grade in
the wake of "No Child Left Behind." Global Education
Review, 4(2), 58–74. https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1155001.pdf.
Riek, J. (2014). Reinstating P.L.A.Y. pedagogy in early
elementary classrooms. The International Journal of
Early Childhood Learning, 22(1), 1–9.
Ring, E., & O’Sullivan, L. (2018). Dewey: A panacea for
the ‘schoolication’ epidemic. International Journal
of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education,
46(4: John Dewey’s Democracy and Education: The
Relevance for Primary Education 100 Years On), 402–
410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1445474.
Roos, L. L., Wall-Wieler, E., & Lee, J.B. (2019). Poverty
and early childhood outcomes. Pediatrics, 143(6),
e20183426. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3426.
Rothwell, J. (2016, December 23). The declining
productivity of education. The Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-
memos/2016/12/23/the-declining-productivity-of-
education/.
Rowe, M. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
(2012). The pace of vocabulary growth helps predict
later vocabulary skill. Child Development, 82(2), 508–
525. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1467-8624.2011.01710.x.
Rubin, K. H. (2001). The play observation scale (POS) –
Revised. University of Maryland.
Schweinhart, L. J. (2018). Lessons on sustaining early
gains from the Life-Course Study of Perry Preschool.
In A. J. Reynolds & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Sustaining
early childhood learning gains: Program, school,
and family inuences: Vol. Part III-School and
Family Processes of Impacts over Time (pp. 254–
267). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/9781108349352.012.
Sharkins, K., Newton, A. B., Causey, C., & Ernest, J. M.
(2017). Flipping theory: Ways in which children’s
experiences in the 21st century can provide insight
into the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. International
Journal of Early Childhood Education Care, 6, 11–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.37134/saecj.vol6.2.2017.
Shonkoff, J. P. (2011). Protecting brains, not simply
stimulating minds. Science, 333(6045), 982–983.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206014.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Rausch, M. K.,
May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral:
A national investigation of African American and
Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School
Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10
.1080/02796015.2011.12087730.
Skibbe, L. E., Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., & Morrison,
F. J. (2019). Self-regulation and the development of
literacy and language achievement from preschool
through second grade. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 46(1), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecresq.2018.02.005.
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., and Khoury, C.
R. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction
curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research.
Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919.
Synodi, E. (2010). Play in the kindergarten: The case
of Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, and Japan.
International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3),
185–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2010.521
299.
Taylor, J., & Bilbrey, J. (2012). Effectiveness of inquiry
based and teacher directed instruction in an Alabama
elementary school. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies,
8. https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097117.pdf.
Trawick-Smith, J., Swaminathan, S., & Liu, X. (2016).
The relationship of teacher-child play interactions
to mathematics learning in preschool. Early Child
Development and Care, 186(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/03004430.2015.1054818.
US Department of Education. (2018, November
7). Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A). https://www2.
ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html.
Vitiello, V. E., & Greeneld, D. B. (2017). Executive
functions and approaches to learning in predicting
school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 53(November), 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.004.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and
development. In Mind and society (pp. 79–91).
Harvard University Press.
Waechter, N., Kalmus, V., Mascheroni, G., & Opermann, S.
(2023). Large-scale comparative school-based survey
research: Challenges and solutions for sampling,
eldwork and informed consent. Methods, Data,
Analyses, 17(2), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.12758/
mda.2023.03.
Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2015). Understanding
classroom roles in inquiry education: Linking role
theory and social constructivism to the concept
of role diversication. SAGE Open. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2158244015607584.
Wallace, C. E., & Russ, S. W. (2015). Pretend play,
divergent thinking, and math achievement in girls:
A longitudinal study. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 296–305. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0039006.
Warmbold-Brann, K., Burns, M. K., Preast, J. L., Taylor,
C. N., & Aguilar, L. N. (2017). Meta-analysis of the
effects of academic interventions and modications
on student behavior outcomes. School Psychology
Quarterly, 32(3), 291–305. https://psycnet.apa.org/
doi/10.1037/spq0000207.
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh & Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M.
(2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a
playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2),
104-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015.
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
102 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M.,
Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play:
Principles and practices. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 25(3), 177–182. https://doi.
org/ 10.1177/0963721416645512
West, J., Hausken, E. G., & Collins, M. (1993,
September). Readiness for kindergarten: Parent
and teacher beliefs (NCES 93–257). National
Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs93/93257.pdf.
White, R. E., Thibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Palermo, F., &
Mikulski, A. M. (2021). Engagement in social pretend
play predicts preschoolers’ executive function gains
across the school year. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 56, 103–113. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.03.005.
Wood, C., Wanzek, J., & Schatschneider, C. (2022). The
relation between teachers’ communicative behaviors
and class-level SES. The Elementary School Journal,
122(4), 534–556. https://doi.org/10.1086/719506.
Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H.,
Liu, C., Neale, D., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread, D.
(2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redening play as
a spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1124. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124.
Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale,
D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread,
D. (2017). Learning through play: A review of the
evidence (white paper). The LEGO Foundation,
DK. https://cms.learningthroughplay.com/media/
wmtlmbe0/learning-through-play_web.pdf.
103 | Volume 2 Issue 1, 2024
Research on Preschool and Primary Education
