EXPLORING THE CONNECTION AMONG THE THREE CONSTRUCTS: JOY, PLAY, AND LEARNING By Amit Sharma A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education – Doctor of Philosophy 2022 ABSTRACT EXPLORING THE CONNECTION AMONG THE THREE CONSTRUCTS: JOY, PLAY, AND LEARNING By Amit Sharma This research project explores the interconnections between three constructs: joy, play, and learning. The research specifically focuses on children's ideas and experiences of joy, play, and learning at a public Montessori School in the United States of America and in the context of engaging with selected math games. The games used are commercially available and are not the usual Montessori material used for teaching math. The project also focuses on how the insights generated through the research can be translated into instructional strategies that may improve children's learning experience. A few of the elements that make the proposed research unique, challenging, and gratifying are its focus on (a) capturing a nebulous concept like joy/happiness as it relates to (b) broadening conceptualization of learning/experiencing (math) through play (c) giving precedence to the voice and perspective of children as opposed to adult's version of children's conceptions, and (d) endeavoring to unravel children's experience of the phenomenon of joy from a collective rather than solely individual lens. The outputs of the research project are presented as four artifacts: two research papers (chapter 2 and 3), and two small movies corresponding to the two papers respectively. The first paper, 'Unsupervised Play with games: an unexplored possibility for high-quality playful learning,' focuses on unraveling the connection between play and learning. It shows how unsupervised play with games can help create a classroom community promoting ‘high quality of play’ replete with learning. The second paper, 'Exploration of children's experience of joyful learning through unsupervised play with (math) games/toys', focuses on the connection between joy and learning. The paper attempts at a phenomenological understanding of the children's lived experience of joyful learning. It builds on the findings of the first paper that show how carefully created opportunities for unsupervised play may be replete with learning opportunities. The second paper presents the conclusions through a 'six F' framework that describes how the six constructs (each starting with the letter F) can provide us a means for observing, understanding, and enabling joyful learning. Two small movies containing animation and selected videos from the study comprise the other output of this research. The movies attempt to capture the findings from the study in an engaging manner and are directed primarily toward a non-academic audience. The inclusion of some videos from the data gathered for the research allows the viewer to engage with the study, which might otherwise not be possible through text alone. The movies also supplement the readers' engagement with the two papers. Dedicated to all my students, teachers, and co-learners. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have always found it difficult to say thank you! No, not the casual ‘thank you’ that one says to everyone for everyday acts of kindness. Where I struggle with thanks, is when it comes to expressing my deepest, most heartfelt, and sincere gratitude to the people for their generosity and support. As I write this acknowledgment section, the familiar feeling of uneasiness with saying ‘thank you’ resurfaces. I will try my best to not let it stop me from expressing my thanks, especially to the people without whom this dissertation and my Ph.D. journey would never have been the same. But know that even with my best efforts, my deepest and most sincere thanks might not be communicated well enough! There are so many people that have contributed to this dissertation and to my personal journey in their unique ways. First and foremost, I wish to thank Amy, my advisor for always having my back, supporting me emotionally, and guiding me at every step with not only professional but existential crisis – which I had many! Next, I want to thank, Manasi, my wife for being a co-passenger on this entire journey, even with all the sacrifices that she had to make on the way. It’s because you are along my side that I feel all journeys are great!. I want to thank my family in India for their encouragement and support. Pitaji, Maataji, Papa, Mummy, and Jyoti - thanks a lot. Special shout out to Riju, my niece, who inspires me to be a better educator every day. My friends in India and at MSU have supported me in every possible way – listening to my rants about academic writing, feeding me sumptuous food, encouraging me to take risks in my work, accepting me with my flaws, and ignoring my absentmindedness are just few that come to mind. Vivek, Kasun, Priyanka, Valentin, Danielle, Vanika, Vishal, Daksh, and Rahul -thanks for being there! v I would also like to thank my committee members - Bethany, Tonya, and Prof. Swarnavel for helping me with the practicum and dissertation. It was only because of your support and guidance that I could accomplish the projects in a way where I could enjoy the process and feel proud of the outcome. I want to thank all the support staff at the College of Education- those that I know personally and those that worked behind the scenes to help me accomplish this dissertation. Last but not the least, I wish to express my thanks to all my students (in India) and the participants of this project for enriching my perspective on learning and teaching. I have learned so much from all of you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Motivation and Context for the Research Project ......................................................... 1 Why exploring more about joy, play and learning continues to motivate me! ........................... 1 Dreams .................................................................................................................................... 1 Drudgery ................................................................................................................................. 1 Discovery ................................................................................................................................ 2 Disdain .................................................................................................................................... 3 Context and Data ........................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction to the research site .............................................................................................. 5 Data Generation ...................................................................................................................... 8 Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: Unsupervised Play with Games: An unexplored Possibility for High-Quality Playful Learning ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Introduction: Play-based learning in its varied forms ............................................................... 20 Guided Play - a panacea or a slippery compromise .............................................................. 22 The promise of guided play. ............................................................................................. 24 The challenges of enacting guided play. ........................................................................... 25 The danger of adults co-opting and hijacking children's play. ......................................... 25 The instrumentalization of play in play-based learning. ................................................... 27 Play and mathematics ............................................................................................................... 28 Measuring Playful learning: Where is the learning in play? .................................................... 29 Unsupervised play with games: Guided play with a difference ............................................... 32 Research question ..................................................................................................................... 34 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 35 Selection of episode .............................................................................................................. 35 Deciding if the episode was side conversation. .................................................................... 36 Assigning a code to the episode using the OPAL Protocol. ................................................. 36 Choosing the category........................................................................................................... 39 Choosing the dimension and deciding if the play was high quality. .................................... 39 Highlighting the salient aspects of play as learning.............................................................. 39 Caveats .................................................................................................................................. 40 Findings .................................................................................................................................... 40 Vignette 1: Picasso Tiles - ‘Persevering to Find a Creative Solution’ ................................. 41 Vignette 2: Clumsy Thief - ‘Inventing Mathematical Methods’ .......................................... 44 Vignette 3: Labyrinth - ‘Changing the Rules of the Game’.................................................. 46 Salient Aspects and the Potential of Unsupervised Play with Games .................................. 48 The play experience was highly attractive and engaging for the learners. ....................... 49 Despite being unsupervised, the play was high quality learning. ..................................... 52 vii With the children directing the unsupervised play, the constraints were reimagined as boundaries. ........................................................................................................................ 56 The play experience allowed for moving away from adult's control to creating a classroom community driven by peer support. ................................................................. 59 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 62 Unsupervised Play with Games can Enable High Quality of Play as Learning and Contribute to the Learning Community .................................................................................................. 62 Unsupervised Play is a Distinct Category Under Playful Learning ...................................... 63 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 66 Changing the ABC of schools into a truly playful learning experience. .............................. 66 Chapter 3: Exploration of Children’s Experience of Joyful Learning Through Unsupervised Play with (math) Games/Toys............................................................................................................... 68 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 69 The Nebulous Construct of Joy............................................................................................. 72 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 76 Phenomenology..................................................................................................................... 76 Phenomenological Data Explication ..................................................................................... 80 Using videos directly and not transcribing the data. ......................................................... 80 Bracketing and phenomenological reduction.................................................................... 80 Delineating units of meaning. ........................................................................................... 82 Clustering of units of meaning to form themes. ............................................................... 83 Summarizing each data source, validating, and modifying. ............................................. 84 Finalizing and naming the themes. ................................................................................... 85 Findings .................................................................................................................................... 86 Freedom ................................................................................................................................ 86 Friendships ............................................................................................................................ 92 Fun ........................................................................................................................................ 96 Fantasy .................................................................................................................................. 99 Fascination .......................................................................................................................... 101 Flow .................................................................................................................................... 106 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 108 Observing ............................................................................................................................ 111 Understanding ..................................................................................................................... 112 Enabling .............................................................................................................................. 112 Research Implications and possible future directions ......................................................... 113 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 114 Chapter 4: Reflections................................................................................................................. 115 Methodological Implications and Possible Future Directions ................................................ 115 Greater participation and stronger voices of children. ........................................................ 115 Using Art Based Research for researching abstract topics especially with children. ......... 116 Use of videos not only as data collection and analysis but also as presentation tools. ....... 117 Key personal Takeaways ........................................................................................................ 118 Distillation........................................................................................................................... 118 Destination .......................................................................................................................... 120 viii APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 121 Appendix A: Consent Form .................................................................................................... 122 Appendix B: Observing Play as Learning (OPAL) Protocol .................................................. 127 Appendix C: Description of Toys Used .................................................................................. 130 Appendix D: Links to Animated Movies ................................................................................ 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 136 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The games that were used for the study and details of the play sessions considered for analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2: The data sources, how the data was recorded, and used for the two papers ................... 17 Table 3: Observing Play as Learning (OPAL) Protocol ............................................................. 127 Table 4: Description of the toys used ......................................................................................... 130 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Students using the TV cutout to share their feedback and reaction through creating an (a) advertisement, (b) role playing, and (c) dancing to a self-composed jingle............................ 14 Figure 2: The ‘Joy, Play, Learning’ newsletter prepared by the students followed by the presentation to the classmates ....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Play as a Spectrum ........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 4: Conceptualization of guided play and other approaches to children’s learning............ 23 Figure 5: Children playing with Picasso Tiles: Setting new challenges, asking new questions, and working to satisfy their curiosity .................................................................................................. 41 Figure 6: The various strategies that were tried out to get the pieces to tessellate so that there is no gap ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 7: The students’ bold move to remove the top row and use the quadrilaterals (made by combining the bigger triangles) to tessellate the pieces................................................................ 44 Figure 8: Dividing the cards equally among the players .............................................................. 46 Figure 9: Negotiating and re-inventing the game rules ................................................................ 48 Figure 10: At the end of vignette 1, the game with Picasso Tiles continued with many other challenges set by the three children .............................................................................................. 51 Figure 11: The proportion of codes (by time) segregated according to the four categories and nine dimensions in OPAL ............................................................................................................. 53 Figure 12: Unsupervised play conceptualized as a distinct category from games and lower than guided play in terms of adult control ............................................................................................ 65 Figure 13: The emerging themes along with the codes and sub codes during the inductive coding process using MAXQDA .............................................................................................................. 85 Figure 14: The screenshots from three different games show the players were sitting at the start of the games (left panel) and how they preferred lying down as the game progressed ................ 89 Figure 15: Mohammad (top right) and Duke (top left), chuckling at an “inappropriate” joke by Brady ............................................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 16: Mohammad (second from right) feeling sad (a) as his counter is behind everyone and Mandy comforting him (b)............................................................................................................ 94 xi Figure 17: Some overt expression of children having fun playing the games .............................. 97 Figure 18: We have the riches-the gold, rubies, emeralds, and sapphires. But look what’s down below- it’s beautiful! ................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 19: The game play with ‘Clumsy Thief’ where the stealing never stopped! And neither did the enjoyment........................................................................................................................ 103 Figure 20: Stefi and Nadia sharing their draw (a) and bursting into laughter (b) as they realized they have three jail cards (the most powerful cards) while playing Clumsy Thief .................... 105 xii Chapter 1: Motivation and Context for the Research Project Why exploring more about joy, play and learning continues to motivate me! Dreams As my research and practice goal, I am interested in what may, very broadly, be termed as “joy of learning and teaching”. My five-year plan, post my Ph.D., is to establish and manage a pilot project, in India-my home country, for a community-led, inclusive, democratic learning space. I imagine it as a site for experimentation, learning, professional development, and research. In the subsequent five years, I want to work on making the model- sustainable and replicable. This research project is a culmination of many years of my elusive search for understanding what joy is in the context of learning (and teaching). It will help me answer some of my questions on how I, as an educator, facilitate educational experiences that might be meaningful for learners. I also hope it will raise a few other essential questions. Drudgery My resolve to enact a joyful, authentic, interesting, engaging, playful, aesthetically rich, and deeply satisfying vision of learning comes primarily from my educational experiences in India. I completed my schooling, undergraduate and master's degree (in Human Resource Management) from India. The inequitable, didactic, and performance (versus learning) oriented Indian educational system is a colonial baggage. I believe it is symptomatic of and actively perpetuates the larger societal inequities. The highly privileged educational experience that I received, at a private catholic school, while equipping me for material success, did not work for me in the true sense. It, in many ways, shielded me from realizing my true passion and masking my privilege. Looking back at my educational experience, I can see how it systematically denied me opportunities for discovering my best authentic self. Education (including my schooling, 1 undergraduate, and master's) and learning were in many ways distinct for me. I memorized content that didn't resonate with me, trained for tests only because assessments mattered for my social status in the class, judged many of my classmates because they did not "do well" in academics. I 'did' education for others and not for myself. Something within me told me that I was not being authentic to myself, but I dragged on with a mask and attitude that I could not fully justify to myself. And I did this for years. I was successful in the eyes of others, but I was continuously failing in my own eyes. Discovery The extra-curricular activities, opportunities to be part of my extended family, volunteering in the community, and traveling experiences, especially my solo expeditions during my undergraduate, master's, and corporate jobs, helped me realize my passion. I realized that I was learning more valuable lessons from these experiences. These experiences convinced me that my abilities and disposition are more suitable for developmental work. As soon as I liquidated my educational loan, that I took for my master’s degree, I switched from the corporate to the development sector. While working in the development sector in India, I spent around eight years trying to make education more empowering, equitable, and enjoyable for children. I have worked as an elementary teacher, a curriculum developer, a professional development facilitator, a program manager, and a founder of an educational, not-for-profit organization. My most significant learning over these years has been that life does not come to us in neatly organized bundles of subject-specific questions, and our attempt at reducing the complexity of learning is, in an ironic sense, reducing the essence of life itself! Interdisciplinarity, experiential, and authentic learning are the core philosophical beliefs in my work and career goals. 2 Disdain Across these roles, I struggled to align my intentions and actions. Despite my intentions of reifying an alternative vision of learning and teaching, I felt constrained by the forces of standardization, testing, and instrumental learning goals. It was not until I consciously worked to insulate myself from these pulls that I could see how willy-nilly I was complicit in perpetuating the same system that I had set out to challenge. Upon realizing this, I tried to remediate this through several means. Visiting the alternative schools across the country and acquainting myself with the learning research support work was among the strategies I tried. While the former proved extremely helpful, I struggled with the latter. Three reasons which constrained me from integrating educational research in my practice were: (a) lack of access to academic literature and curated material, (b) difficulty in comprehending the academic research literature (c) non-relatability to research findings. I enrolled myself in a Masters of Elementary Education program at arguably the best and one of my dream Social Science colleges in India. I was constantly comparing my learning in the master’s program to the experience of spending time at alternative educational institutions across the country and my other self-directed learning efforts like Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). I found the latter to be more enriching and relatable to the topics I wanted to learn and issues that I was facing as a practitioner. Consequently, I left the course after a semester. Up to this point, my educational journey was driven by instrumental reasons. The enjoyment with a subject and topic was accidental. This decision to drop out of the course that I genuinely wanted to study was unsettling in many ways and convinced me that I would no longer run after credentials. It was against this struggle of trying to be closer to the community, classrooms, children and strengthen my practice that I decided to pursue my Ph.D. My desire to expand my 3 knowledge about philosophical, ideological, and pragmatic approaches towards education brought me to the United States of America for my doctorate in education. I have had a great learning experience at Michigan State University (MSU), with opportunities to involve myself in teaching, research, and community engagement. One of the salient differences during the Ph.D. was how for the first time in my educational experience, I felt I was not being taught but facilitated to drive my learning. As I searched for what could make learning joyful for children, my experiences in graduate school were illuminating principles that seem true for any age range. In the PAH -Pedagogy, Andragogy, Heutagogy (PAH) continuum (see Gerstein, 2016 for details), I see myself gravitating toward self-determined and self-directed learning paradigms than teacher-led learning and play as one of the most powerful enablers of learning. I see the focus on play-based learning as the most pragmatic way to challenge the anti- play culture that permeates our educational institutions. Drawing from the ideology of humanistic education, especially the self-directed education (SDE) movement, which views playfulness, curiosity, planfulness, and sociability as the four natural drivers of learning, I see play as the most authentic form and analogous to learning. Further, inspired by the indigenous and the eastern epistemological worldview, I see the focus on community, relationships, spirituality, and holism as the foundational elements underlying learning (and living). This research allows me to understand play-based learning deeply and use its power to make learning more enjoyable. 4 Context and Data Introduction to the research site The research site for my dissertation is a public Montessori school in a mid-western city of the United States of America. Montessori educational philosophy is named after Maria Montessori and is considered an alternative and progressive educational philosophy. Maria Montessori struggled through her early discouraging schooling experiences and later the societal patriarchal structures to become the first female medical doctor in Italy (Mooney, 2000). She started her Case Dei Bambini (Children's House) in 1907 in the slums of Rome. It was here that she experimented and perfected her instructional methods. The movement spread to other countries including in Europe, Asia (primarily India), and later in the United States. Montessori is perhaps among the best-known early-childhood educational approaches having its roots in Europe. Regio Emilia and Waldorf being the other two most famous approaches. Each of the three approaches has many similarities but also distinct differences (Edwards, 2002). Stating the similarities in the three approaches Edwards (2002) writes - All three approaches represent an explicit idealism and turn away from war and violence towards peace and reconstruction. They are built on coherent visions of how to improve human society by helping children realize their full potential as intelligent, creative, whole persons. In each approach, children are viewed as active authors of their own development, strongly influenced by natural, dynamic, self-righting forces within themselves, opening the way towards growth and learning. (p.2) The Montessori schooling system has many structural and philosophical elements that may contribute to the wellbeing and happiness of the children (Biswas & Deiner, 2011). The Montessori method purportedly eliminates many of the causes for children’s disengagement 5 from the school through its focus on the child-centered approach. Edwards (2000) highlights the key characteristics of Montessori system to include - trust on the intrinsic strengths of children, the emphasis on play (which is seen as the child's work), and its philosophical alignment to not use grades or other forms of rewards and punishment, subtle or overt, but to rely on observations as assessment. Extolling Maria Montessori for her contribution, Biswas and Diener (2011) state that “She was passionate about helping each child to live a life that was engaged, meaningful and enjoyable. These are, by their very nature, vital components of happiness” (p. 218). Rathunde and Csikszentmihalyi (2005) found that Montessori students’ reports of their day-to-day experience were significantly more positive than ratings offered by students in traditional educational settings. My inclination to conduct the study in a Montessori school came from my hypothesis that due to the less didactic, non-evaluative, and more intrinsically motivating environment, there will be more opportunities for children to experience joy. The study was conducted in a mixed grade classroom (IV-V) at the Montessori school. Mixed-age classrooms are typical and considered an essential characteristic of Montessori. Greatschoo1l is a national not-for-profit that compiles and shares data about schools. According to its website, the Montessori school caters to 73% of students who are from low-income families. The student population is 42% White, 29% Black, 14% belonging to two or more races, and 12% Hispanic with the remaining students belonging to other categories. The summary rating compiled and provided by Greatschool uses publicly available data, and measures school quality based on three rating components: student progress (42%), test scores (30%); and equity (28%). Greatschool rate the Montessori school at a 2/10 ( a below- 1 https://www.greatschools.org 6 average score). The page on the Greatschool website flags many indicator categories as “very concerning” and the school is rated below average in school quality compared to other schools in Michigan with students ranking below average year-over-year academic improvement, in how well it’s serving disadvantaged students, and on state tests. Some of the reviews on the Greatschool page of the school by respondents listed as parents are as follows: “The Montessori method had been great for all 3 of my kids. The one with sensory issues has had a safe environment and understanding teachers. The overachiever is given extra work that challenges her and keeps her from getting bored. And my daughter that isn't so interested in books, finds hands-on learning opportunities.” “This is the only school I will send my daughter to. If the format stops working for her, she will be homeschooled!” “This school is awesome until you hit 3rd grade. Then it ceases to be an authentic Montessori. Teachers heavily rely on packets, threats and bribes.” The last comment is particularly important for understanding the context of this study. I was excited to learn about the Montessori approach and was grateful to the teacher/ principal for letting me in the class and creating time and space for my work. However, I soon realized that the space was nowhere close to the ideal Montessori classroom that I had imagined and researched. While the school followed the multi-age grouping structure (which is a hallmark of Montessori), due to disciplinary issues, grade VI was shifted from the current school to another public school. As I interacted with the children, I learned that they had not yet engaged with any of the Montessori math material in the class throughout the academic year. The children’s experience was the same as the previous grade-band where they worked repetitively on procedural worksheets rather than the Montessori material. My observations of the classroom indicated the same trend for other subjects also, where the students seemed to be engaged in repetitive exercises on the worksheets. While the teacher was hesitant to talk about it in detail, 7 she lamented about the “downfall” of the school over the years and mentioned standardized testing, the funding constraints, and the lack of leadership as factors that contributed to the changes. Thus, while the classroom retained some elements of the Montessori classroom, spatially and procedurally (like accessible workstations, flexible seating, mats, and individual working plan, etc.), in my impression, the classroom struggled to embody the spirit of Montessori teaching. This also means that the context of this research site lies somewhere between the experiences of a typical traditional public school in a relatively diverse and not so rich locality and that of an experimental alternative child-centered school. Data Generation The research data was generated during regular school hours in a Montessori classroom. The timetable of the Montessori classroom was not divided into distinct subject-specific periods and provided me the flexibility to integrate the play sessions into the schedule. Consent was sought from the participating children and their parents. A detailed consent form (Refer to Appendix A) was developed and shared with the parents to explain the aims and procedures related to the research. The permissions of both, the parents, and the children, were sought independently. The data was collected only for those children whose parents agreed to the terms of the consent form. Also, the research goals and procedures were explained to the children, and it was conveyed to them that they could decide to withdraw from the research activities at any time (if for whatever reason they felt the need to do so), even if their parents had consented to their participation. While the research and video recording were done only with students who agreed to participate in the research, the play session with toys and games and any other activity was conducted with anyone interested in participating (even if they denied participating in the research component). 8 To capture the multiple ways in which children experience and express joy, I used videos as a tool for data generation. My focus was centered on understanding the phenomenological experience of joy. Children are naturally excited about electronics in general and particularly with video and audio recording equipment. I used this natural excitement to seek their involvement in the data generation and collection phase by encouraging them to engage with the equipment. I sought their help as I unpacked and set up the recording equipment (video recorders, audio recorders, and tripods) and let them control it (switching it on and off and setting up the camera, etc.). This helped me “demystify” the equipment (Jewitt, 2012) and minimize the impact of the presence of recording equipment. Graue and Walsh (1998) state that “acquiring data is a very active, creative, improvisational process” (p.91). I consciously and deliberately involved the children in this creative process - both as an instrumental goal to improve my relationship with them and also as a philosophical stand of it being an educative and joyful experience for the children. Shoecraft and Fluckiger (2017) mention that in a video study with children, the children accommodate the videos in four distinct ways - curiosity and investigation of the video cameras; engagement in the recording process along with the researcher; incorporation of the video cameras into their play; and lastly disregard of the video recording equipment. I observed the children moving through these accommodations almost in a sequential manner as I spent time with the children. With the spirit to not enforce participation, I did not insist that the students compulsorily be part of any of the research activities. There were instances, especially at the beginning few sessions, where the children were hesitant to share their impromptu feedback. While they agreed to having their play video and audio recorded, they were reluctant to share their reactions on the mock TV station (discussed later) that I had set up. In such cases, I respected their decision and 9 told them (while getting nervous about not getting data) that they don’t have to do it unless they are comfortable with it. As I spent more time with the children and they saw other children participate in the activities, almost all students warmed up to the activities. I did not come across a situation where I felt that the children were uncomfortable participating in the research activities. I conducted a total of twelve sessions spanning from 60-90 minutes each. During the first eight sessions, the focus was on children playing with the games. The children also recorded their impromptu reactions and reflection on the play experience during these sessions and I also engaged in unstructured conversations with willing children during these sessions. These were followed by three more sessions (9th-11th) where the semi-structured student interviews were conducted with the available students while the other students continued to play. During the last (12th) session I did a poster making and presentation activity with the children. I identified and selected nine mathematical toys that were rated highly on Amazon. A few of these toys have won awards in various categories, and some of these have been designed by educators and mathematicians. Please refer to Appendix C for more details on the toys. Out of my initial selection of nine toys, the children decided not to select and play with dominoes and the ‘Proof’ game after the first two sessions. They did not enjoy them when compared with the other toys and hence I eventually (after 4th session) removed these toys, as they were not selected by the students. My informal observation suggests that Prime Climb, Picasso Tiles, and Clumsy Thief were the most sought-after games. 10 Table 1: The games that were used for the study and details of the play sessions considered for analysis Game Description of the game and the embedded Play Instances Approximate Mathematical focus Duration BlockUs It is marketed as a strategy game. The four players 4 children (competing individually) 25 minutes take turns placing their 21 pieces on the board with each piece touching another of the same color, but 4 children (competing individually) only at the corners. The aim is to claim maximum area 30 minutes by fitting as many of your pieces on the board as 4 children (competing in pairs) possible while strategically blocking your opponents! 4 children (competing in pairs) 20 minutes 20 minutes Chroma Chroma Cube is a puzzles that uses deductive 1 pair (collaborating) 30 minutes Cubes reasoning skills by showing the position of some color cubes, and giving clues that can be used to deduce where the other colors go. Clumsy Players look at their dealt hand for any two cards that 4 children (competing individually) 35 minutes Thief add to $100 to make money stacks. Money stacks can be taken from other players if a player has a card in 4 children (competing individually) his hand that makes $100 when added to the top card 32 minutes of an opponent's stack. Thief cards also snatch stacks. 4 children (competing individually) Jail cards stop Thief cards. All players are actively adding and snatching. The player with the most 4 children (competing in pairs) 15 minutes money wins! 20 minutes 11 Table 1 (cont’d) Prime Climb Prime Climb is a game to explore the mathematical 4 children (Competing individually) 30 minutes structure of the four arithmetic operations and prime numbers in a game of strategy and luck. 4 children (competing in pairs) 35 minutes 4 children (competing individually) 35 minutes 4 group (competing individually) 10 minutes Mathdice The children roll the six dice and try to get the number 4 children (Competing individually) 25 minutes on the white dice (1-10) using any of the four arithmetic operations on the other 5 numbers on the colored dice. The more the number of dice used, to get the target number (white dice) the more they can move ahead. Labyrinth The alternate tiles on the board are movable and hence 4 children (competing individually) 48 minutes (2 the board acquires a dynamic character with every games) turn. The aim for the players is to reach all the 2 children (competing individually) treasures and targets (mentioned in the cards that they 20 minutes draw) as they move through the Labyrinth. Picasso Tiles Picasso Tiles are magnetic pieces that come in 3 children (playing collaboratively) 54 minutes different shapes and snap on to the other pieces magentically. It allows the construction of three 5 children (playing collaboratively) dimensional shapes. 13 minutes 12 The typical play sessions followed this structure:(a) greeting the children and setting up the recording equipment in collaboration with the children, (b) children playing with their choice of the selected toy(s), and (c) children recording their reactions on the games and their reflection of joy, play, and learning. During the play sessions, there were usually two to five groups of students playing different games. The children who were allowed to play, during any session, were selected by the teacher, and this was usually based on her assessment of whether the child had made progress on their assigned work. However, on three occasions, the entire class participated in playing the games. I was limited by the number of cameras (three) and hence I usually recorded two groups at a time with the third camera placed next to a television cut out that I used to record the student's impromptu comments and reactions. The children usually chose the game that they wanted to play, and this was by default on a first come first serve basis. The groups and pairs were usually negotiated by the children themselves. This was in some cases influenced by who the teacher had allowed to play, and the suggested number of players for the specific toy. I had left the toys in the school and prompted the children to play with them, with the permission of the teacher. But to the best of my knowledge, it did not happen. During the first two sessions, I explained the rules of each of the games/toys to the initial group of students playing the game. The children, in turn, explained it to their other friends during the subsequent sessions. I provided clarifications as and when needed but most of the time, the children were comfortable with the rules (or invented their own!). To encourage students to share their impromptu feedback with me, I placed a television cut out in the classroom (see figure 1 below). A camera and an audio recorder were placed in a position such that it recorded the children as they spoke from behind the television cut out. I wrote ‘Joy-Play-Learning’ on one side of the television cut out (the side facing the children and 13 facing away from the camera) and asked them to record their reactions whenever they felt like doing it. They could do it individually or with their friends. I asked the children to comment on whatever came to their minds as they read the three words and combined them in various combinations along with the preposition of their choice. For example- joy in play, play with learning, play, and learning, etc. I usually tried maintaining physical distance from where I had set up the television cut out, especially as the children shared their comments/responses. This was done to minimize the influence of my presence. As mentioned before, the students knew how to turn the recording equipment (camera and the audio recorder) on and off, and I gave them control over when (or not) they wanted to switch the equipment on. This was a way for me to show them my trust and I found that the strategy helped. Eventually, the television station became a game by itself. The children started interviewing each other, role-playing, singing to the camera, and sharing their experiences about the games. I occasionally asked them some questions, but I also got some rich excerpts when the children questioned their friends, without any prompts from me. I also interacted with some students through an unstructured conversation on some occasions as they became more comfortable with my presence and included me in their play especially around the television cut out. Figure 1: Students using the TV cutout to share their feedback and reaction through creating an (a) advertisement, (b) role playing, and (c) dancing to a self-composed jingle (a) (b) (c) 14 During the next three sessions, I interviewed two children at a time during the 9th-11th sessions using semi-structured methodology. The children were interviewed in a small room adjoining the classroom. Since I focused on the collective sense of joy, ideally, I wanted to interview the children in groups of three-four. However, the room was very small, and I was not able to fit more than two children comfortably in the camera frame. I decided to interview and video record them in pairs. The pairs were selected randomly, and children just came in pairs after taking permission from the teacher. The semi-structured interview questions were informed by what the children had recorded on the television cut out (which I watched at the end of each data collection day) and, my observations as they played the games and some general prompts around joy, play, and learning. The interviews lasted about 20-30 minutes per pair. I tried sticking to the norms of effective phenomenological interviewing and asked open-ended questions and let them drive the conversations. I followed up the semi-structured interviews with a newsletter activity during the twelfth (and last) session, where I asked the students to make a newsletter on ‘joy, play, and learning’ (see Figure 2 below). They were free to draw, write poems, songs, stories, surveys, reflections about Joy, play and learning. The students also gave a presentation once they finished their newsletter and I video recorded the presentations. 15 Figure 2: The ‘Joy, Play, Learning’ newsletter prepared by the students followed by the presentation to the classmates In alignment with my goal of focusing on the communal aspects (rather than the individualized experiences) of joy through learning, none of the activities or games used for the data collection were positioned as individual activities. I also encouraged participation in the research activities (interviews/focus groups/art-based activities etc.) at the group level. The analytical framework applied, wherever possible, focused on group / communal level experiences of joy along with individual-focused frameworks. As the first step of identifying units (lengths of time) in the videos for qualitative thematic coding (discussed later), I split the videos according to the central idea/concept that the majority of the group members were attending to at any point in time. Thus, unlike other studies where the focus is on the individual students, I continued to focus on the group. It is worth clarifying that in my focus on the 16 communal, rather than only on the individual perspective of joy, I included the collaborative, cooperative, and (also) the competitive behavior of children. Data Sources The table below explains the data sources and how they were recorded – Table 2: The data sources, how the data was recorded, and used for the two papers Data Source Recorded Paper 1 Paper 2 (documented through) (a) video recording of children playing ● stationary Y Y with the toys camera at each ● As per the given directions of the toy station game. ● Audio recorder ● Organizing the group of children at each toy into teams such that they were station playing as collaborative pairs (including sharing their strategies with each other, exchanging their cards etc.) (b) Impromptu reactions by children to the ● Recorded by a Y Y open-ended prompt of what they think stationary about “joy, play and learning’ using a camera + audio mock TV and Radio station ( The children recorder mostly used the TV station and hence the Radio station was removed). (c) Unstructured individual student ● Video and audio Y interviews recorded (d) Collaborative Poster making and ● Video and audio Y presentation activity on the topic of ‘Joy- recorded Play-Learning’ ● Posters made by the children 17 As noted in the table above, while all the data sources were used for the second study (chapter 3), only the first two data sources were used for the first study (chapter 2). 18 Chapter 2: Unsupervised Play with Games: An unexplored Possibility for High-Quality Playful Learning Abstract Disagreements surrounding the exact nature of play and learning are ongoing. Guided play and games, both of which fall under the umbrella of playful learning, provide an example. Scholars describe guided play as focused on learning goals and as having a valuable role for adult (teacher) involvement to guide the children’s play towards learning. The main argument forwarded in favor of the adults’ role is that adults can facilitate, gently nudge, and hence extend learning, which would otherwise be unattainable (Fisher et al., 2013). However, some scholars and play advocates have resisted the idea of adult intervention in children's play and have highlighted the dangers of adults hijacking children's play. While theoretically the guidance in guided play could be embedded in the environment or design of the play material, the predominant focus of current research and practice has been on the support provided by the adults. The role and contribution of peers, especially around unsupervised play, has not been adequately assessed as a source of extending the learning opportunity through guided play. This study addresses this gap. It uses the ‘Observing play as learning- OPAL’ protocol, developed for this study to evaluate the quality of play (TrawickSmith, 2014) in relation to playing as learning. The four key aspects discussed in the findings are based on deductive coding analysis and synthesizing the observations. They highlight how peer-led unsupervised play, especially for tweens, can ensure high standards of learning not only in content but also in higher-order skills like thinking, problem-solving, creativity, collaboration, communication, etc. The reinterpretation of constraints as boundaries and children’s autonomy to drive the play could contribute to creating a rich classroom community. This leads to the core recommendation that 19 unsupervised games with peers should be conceptualized distinctly from games, and therefore as distinct from play that is scaffolded by adults. The position and nature of unsupervised games under the playful learning umbrella must be further examined for their affordances and limitations. Introduction: Play-based learning in its varied forms Play, playfulness, and learning are complex and complicated constructs and share ambiguous relationships between and among them (Mardell et al., 2016). The difficulty of defining play and learning further compounds the challenge of precisely characterizing and understanding play-based learning. While there might be differences related to exact definitions and terminologies, there seems to be widespread agreement among educational researchers that “child-driven educational methods sometimes referred to as ‘playful learning’ are the most positive means yet known to help young children’s development” (Lillard et al. 2013, 28). 'Play- based learning', 'playful learning', and 'learning through play' are used to describe what, at its core, is the instructional approach in which learners learn while engaged in play. While historically, early educators conceptually separated play-based learning from academics, the current curriculum mandates a shift towards academic learning through play, which poses implementation related challenges for the educators (Pyle & Danniels, 2017; Pyle et al., 2018). Thus, the conflict between play for development or academic growth is positioned as distinct foci. This distinction also influences how we view the relationship between play and learning and the adults' role in it. Opposing the dichotomy between academic and developmental goals, Pyle and colleagues (2017) call for “a need to move away from a binary stance regarding play and toward an integration of perspectives and practices, with different types of play perceived as complementary rather than incompatible” (p. 311). Pyle and Daniels (2017) also 20 propose a play continuum toward this vision. While mapping what they call the play continuum, Pyle and Daniels (2017) map free play as most child-directed while learning through games as teacher directed. Collaboratively designed play falls in the center of the continuum (See Pyle and Daniells, 2017). One of the several ways play-based learning is categorized includes conceptualizing it as existing on a spectrum with ‘free play’ on one end and ‘direct instruction’ on the other (See figure 3 below). Playful learning is the umbrella term used to describe free play as well as more structured play like guided play and games. Figure 3: Play as a Spectrum Copied from Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., ... & Whitebread, D. (2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1124 Amidst the ongoing debate in research and practice as to where ‘free play’ ends and ‘guided play’ begins, two dimensions are often used to delineate the child’s agency and the role of constraints: (a) how planned is the learning environment and (b) how much control do the adults exercise as compared to the children (Danniels & Pyle, 2018; Pyle & Danniels, 2017). Free play is broadly understood as play without any constraints (environmental or because of an adult’s presence), that is pleasurable, child-directed, voluntary, and internally motivated. The term ‘guided play’ broadly refers to activities with some level of adult involvement, and it often aims to embed and extend opportunities for additional learning within play (Pyle, Poliszczuk, & Danniels, 2018). ‘Games’ are a recent addition to the playful-learning umbrella. Though they can 21 be adult-driven with set constraints and rules, they are included under the broader domain of playful learning (Hassinger-Das et al., 2017; Zosh et al.,(2017). Guided play and games may also be categorized further as ‘teacher directed’ and ‘mutually directed’ with both students and teachers exercising some control (Danniels & Pyle,2017; 2018). Zosh and colleagues (2017) claim that mapping play on this continuum helps to “make more refined hypotheses about how play relates to varied aspects of development – from traditional academic outcomes to the newer conceptualizations of skills needed for 21st-century success” (p.1). Among the various forms of playful learning, guided play has earned significant attention. Guided Play - a panacea or a slippery compromise Guided play is an instructional approach falling under the umbrella of 'play-based learning' (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Zosh et al., 2018) and a 'middle ground' between free play and direct instruction (Skene et al., 2022). According to Toub and colleagues (2016), guided play emphasizes the extrinsic goal of building the young children’s academic abilities and knowledge while retaining the attributes of free play, including the engaging and enjoyable nature, and preserving the child's agency. By giving children more autonomy within a prepared environment and adult support, guided play takes advantage of children's natural ability to learn through play (Weisberg et al., 2016). In contrast to free play, it has the "advantage of focusing the child on the dimensions of interest for a learning objective" (Weisberg et al., 2016, pp. 177-178). Skene and colleagues (2022) state three fundamental characteristics of guided play: (a) presence of a clear learning goal in the mind of the adult setting up the playful activity, (b) some degree of choice and agency such that the play is child led, irrespective of whether the adult or the child initiated it, and (c) flexibility in guiding techniques to ensure sensitivity to the child's needs and interests. These characteristics supplement the earlier work, such as Weisberg and colleagues (2016), who 22 consider an explicit focus on learning outcomes and adult mentorship as the two vital elements of guided play. Thus, guided play focuses on learning goals and sees a valuable role of adult involvement to guide the play. These two factors are also related to the two dimensions that distinguish guided play from other instructional approaches (see figure 4 below). Figure 4: Conceptualization of guided play and other approaches to children’s learning Adapted from Toub, T. S., Rajan, V., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Guided play: A solution to the play versus learning dichotomy. (p.122) On the spectrum of play, both guided learning and games share commonalities in terms of being initiated by students, directed by adults, and the prevalence of a learning goal (Zosh et. al, 2018). However, when compared to guided play, games are regarded as further away from 23 free play and closer to direct instruction. Similarly, Pyle and Daniels (2017) state that on the play-based learning continuum the “most prescriptive type of play-based learning is learning through games” (p. 22). Toub and colleagues (2018) represented freeplay, guided play, and direct instruction using the two axes of adult control and constraint. Games were not included in this original representation. However, as seen in some of their other work, games have been assessed on these dimensions (Zosh et al. 2018). Games by virtue of the goal directed nature are inherently more bounded. Also, in usual educational contexts of a classroom, the adults (teachers) exercise significant control during games than during guided play as they try to achieve the learning goal. Thus, if we were to plot games on the two axes of constraints and adult control, games would be represented through the yellow cloud in figure 4. It must be noted that games will still fall under the playful learning category (indicated by the increased light blue rectangles on the top and right side of the original gray rectangular area). The promise of guided play. Several studies have established the effectiveness of guided play (Weisberg et al., 2016; Hassinger-Das et al., 2017, Yu et al., 2018). In the latest systematic review and meta-analysis Skene et al. (2022) found that young children could learn and develop through guided play, at least as well as, and sometimes even better than, traditional means like direct instruction. The study concluded that the playful approach to learning could develop literacy, numeracy, social skills, and executive functions as effectively as more traditional, teacher-led methods. The results also suggest that guided play may be more effective than other strategies for teaching some skills, notably math. It is not surprising that educators and researchers make a strong case in favor of guided play based on the existing evidence of its success. 24 The challenges of enacting guided play. How, where, and for what purpose the guidance comes from is critical in guided play. Weisberg and colleagues (2016) distinguish between two forms of guidance. In the first form, the guidance may be embedded within the design and setting, such as a high-quality museum exhibit, allowing children to explore and learn freely. In contrast, the second (and the more popular) form is when adults observe and offer comments, questions, suggestions, feedback to extend and support the child's learning experience. Yu and colleagues (2018) state that guided play is ‘interactive’ and ‘dynamic’, and hence the guidance must consider the mental and emotional state of the child and should be timely. One of the most challenging aspects of providing guidance is balancing the child's agency with the constraints that the adult may impose and determining how this should differ across learning contexts and learners (Weisberg, 2016; Yu et al., 2018; Toub et al., 2016). The inherent slippery slope is the risk of how and when the adult's guidance may turn into a coercive direction. We know that: When adults control, lead or take over a child’s play, they are violating the basic principles of play being self-chosen and self-directed by the child. When children lose the freedom to explore openly, the experience loses its meaning (Rymanowicz, 2015, n.d.). The danger of adults co-opting and hijacking children's play. Given the challenges around providing the proper guidance and in the right manner, scholars have alerted us to the risk of adults "hijacking" the child's play (Goouch, 2008, p. 95). Zosh and colleagues (2018) state that "If a child initiates a context for play and then an adult intervenes to direct the play within that context, we enter co-opted play, not guided play" (p. 3). Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson (2006) state that the teacher's role is "to support, not to disturb" (p. 48) the child's play. While scholars like Pyle and Danniels (2016) ask us to move 25 away from such conceptions and embrace the promise of guided play, others like Gray (2009, 2013) view any unsolicited adult supervision, praise, or intervention as a sure shot recipe to ruin children's play. Gray (2013) stresses the importance of self-directed play and exploration for young children and sees learning as a natural outcome of this free exploration. He stresses that adult intervention is deleterious to the developing capacities for children towards self-directed learning. Halton (2021) states that "we have injected ourselves far too heavily into something that should be natural to children. We are guilty of micromanaging children's play to the point where it no longer resembles actual play and is now some sort of play mutant (n.d).” Moreover, the learning outcomes in guided play are conceptualized mainly in academic (content) focused outcomes instead of the higher-level skills. The genesis for integrating academic learning in play seems to emanate from the tendency to define learning as a direct outcome of instruction and school-based approaches that focus on teacher-led, goal-directed activities and declarative knowledge (Lecusay et al., 2017; Samuelsson & Carlsson, 2008). Yu and colleagues (2018) clarify that the pedagogical objective of guidance in guided play is not only to help children "master particular knowledge or skills" but "also aims to provide children with an opportunity to enjoy, control, and reflect upon their own learning process, which may facilitate independent inquiry and discovery in the future” (p. 2). Despite this ideal call, the call for guided play is driven primarily by a limited notion of learning defined in terms of academic (and content-focused) learning goals. Moving away from content to more process-oriented and higher-level skills such as creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, etc., may be the starting point of making the shift in viewing learning more holistically and play more meaningful for the children. 26 The instrumentalization of play in play-based learning. The definition of play as given in the General Comment No. 17 by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC], 2013) states that - Children’s play is any behavior, activity, or process initiated, controlled and structured by children themselves; it takes place whenever and wherever opportunities arise. Caregivers may contribute to the creation of environments in which play takes place, but play itself is non-compulsory, driven by intrinsic motivation and undertaken for its own sake, rather than as a means to an end. Play involves the exercise of autonomy, physical, mental or emotional activity, and has the potential to take infinite forms, either in groups or alone. These forms will change and be adapted throughout the course of childhood. The key characteristics of play are fun, uncertainty, challenge, flexibility, and non- productivity (p.6). In the above definition, the instrumental role of play—as a means towards something else (including learning)— is explicitly de-emphasized. It is also interesting to note that ‘non- productivity’ is among the characteristics of play in the above definition. Generally, play-based learning and specifically in guided play, play is seen as a means towards other things (developmental and primarily academic goals). Play is for learning, and learning itself is usually understood as cognitively oriented, teacher-led, and goal-directed (Lecusay et al., 2017). This approach excludes the kinds of learning experienced through play activities that children self- initiate and spontaneously engage in, which may be characterized as play as learning. This dichotomization also reflects the seemingly disconnected goals of developmental versus academic learning through play-based pedagogies. Scholars have argued for a 27 reconceptualization of learning and development -one that views learning not only as an outcome of instruction, but also of play and exploration (Lecusay et al. , 2017). Cole-Hamilton, (as cited in Gleave & Cole-Hamilton, 2012) cautions us not to ‘instrumentalize’ play and lose sight of the essence of play as something that children do in their own time following their ideas, in their way, and for their reasons. Play and mathematics The focus on play can also help us redirect our attention to the process of doing math rather than only procedural solution steps. Engaging with math games and toys can be a joyful experience and can contribute to the understanding of key mathematical ideas and support children's mathematical habits of mind (Reed & Young, 2019). In the case of math, the eight Common Core Practice Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) rest on important "processes and proficiencies with longstanding importance in mathematics education." (p.6). The eight CCSSM standards build upon the earlier five NCTM process standards and the strands of mathematical proficiency mentioned in the National Research Council's report Adding it up. The eight process standards are: (i) Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them, (ii) Reason abstractly and quantitatively, (iii) Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, (iv) Model with mathematics, (v) Use appropriate tools strategically, (vi) Attend to precision, (viii) Look for and make use of structure, (viii) Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. The reform approach of mathematics underlines the importance of conceptual understanding, inquiry, application, mathematical reasoning, and communication, complex problem-solving, and discourages solitary and excessive focus on the attainment of computational skills and factual knowledge (National Research Council, 2001; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, 2010). 28 Boaler (2016) alludes to the 5Cs of mathematical engagement and asserts that mathematical excitement, in her view, looks the same for struggling 11-year-olds as it does for high-flying students in top universities. Boaler's 5 C's are– curiosity, connection making, challenge, creativity, and collaboration. I see three core elements of a mathematically rich play and learning experience based on these frameworks. These are (a) inquiry-based problem solving with open- ended, engaging but challenging 'problematic' problems (b) a motivating and engaging culture emphasizing perseverance, growth mindset, and accepting mistakes as a natural and essential part of learning, and (c) collaborative student-centered instruction with the teacher being a facilitator rather than the expert and allowing for mathematical communication among participants. Measuring Playful learning: Where is the learning in play? As with play, there is no consensus on a uniform understanding of learning. The term “learning” in academic research (especially as it relates to schools and formal educational settings) comes loaded with connotations. It is regarded as primarily cognitive, an outcome of planned activities, guided by experts (adult), predictable, individualistic in its outcome, verifiable by assessments, etc. (Zosh et al., 2017; Hamilton, 2011; Gleave & Hamilton, 2012; Lecusay et al., 2017 ). While in academic research learning was (and perhaps continues to be) primarily understood in the cognitive sense, the broader view extends it “to include areas such as physical (e.g., fine and gross motor skills), social (e.g., empathy and theory of mind), emotional (e.g., development self-regulation and even self-conscious emotions), and creative development (e.g., divergent thinking, making and expressing)” (Zosh et al., 2017). Given the differing notions around what exactly is learning, several dichotomous conceptions influence the debate about what should be the focus of measurement in play-based 29 learning: academic versus developmental learning, content versus process standards, hard skills versus soft skills (Pyle & Danniels, 2017; Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2016; Hamilton, 2011). As one may imagine, academic learning, content mastery, and hard-skills are more accessible and easier to measure than developmental learning, process standards, and soft skills. We also know that "educational products and classrooms have been riveted by attention to content that can be most easily measured and tested" (Hirsh Pasek et al., 2022). The unfortunate fallout is that "what is tested influences what is taught, in significant and some-times unexpected, problematic ways” (Hamilton, 2011, p. 48). I would also add that what gets tested influences how it gets taught. For example, one cannot expect the development of higher-order skills like problem-solving and creativity if the instructional model is focused on the drill and repetition of procedural skills and calculations. Zosh and colleagues (2017) argue that while many studies have examined playful learning and its benefits for content knowledge (e.g., math, vocabulary, spatial knowledge), there is a paucity of work related to benefits of play on more dynamic skills such as executive function, communication, collaboration, critical thinking. They make a case for linking learning through play to more diverse outcomes. They also emphasize the necessity to use more advanced methods, especially for testing higher-level skills, and the need for more extensive research on how varying play characteristics support different types of learning across ages. Jeffrey TrawickSmith and colleagues at ‘The Center for Early Childhood Education at Eastern Connecticut State University’ have developed a framework and an instrument to operationalize the quality of play. The framework and the instrument address some of the critical issues raised by Zosh and colleagues (2017). Thinking and learning, problem-solving, curiosity, sustained interest, creative expression, symbolic transformation, collaboration and communication, and 30 independent use of the toy form the key considerations to measure the quality of play as per the framework developed by them. Based on the above framework they have also developed the Toys Effect on Play Instrument (TEPI) which is divided into three main components: (i)Thinking and learning, (ii) creativity and imagination, and (iii) social interaction, and measures the quality of play on eight dimensions across five levels. See Trawick-Smith, Russell, and Swaminathan (2011) for more details and a copy of TEPI. Play has been associated with enjoyment and engagement (White, 2012; Gray, 2013). However, the research on the emotional, and social dimension of play, specifically on play with games and toys is limited (Trawick-Smith, Russell, & Swaminathan, 2011). Moreover, most of the extant research on play with toys/ games concentrates on early childhood educational settings and young children. It is widely accepted that students are disengaged from schooling and their engagement drops as they spend more years in school (Yu & Calderon, 2017). According to a 2004 analysis by the National Research Council more than 40% of high school students in the United States are disengaged from learning, are inattentive, exert little effort on schoolwork, and report being bored in school (Usher & Kober, 2012). Focusing specifically on guided play, Toub and colleagues (2016) state that “since most existing work focuses on young children, we need to examine whether guided play relates to cognitive and social outcomes in older children and adults” (p. 135). How the insights related to play-based learning generally and to guided play specifically, apply to tweens and young adolescents might be able to shed light on and propose solutions for countering the rising disengagement of students as they make the transition from pre-primary to primary and elementary grades. 31 Unsupervised play with games: Guided play with a difference Keith Devlin (Stanford University, 2015), a mathematician and educational researcher at Stanford, defines a game as "a closed system, pursued for pleasure; in which players engage in an artificial learning, achievement or conflict activity; defined and constrained by rules' in pursuit of an achievable, quantifiable goal" (n.d.). Interestingly, he claims that this definition also describes mathematics. In addition to establishing an enjoyable learning environment, games are viewed as effective ways to engage and motivate students and stimulate mathematical discussion (Bragg, 2006; Oldfield, 1991). It must be remembered that not all games are equally well designed and engaging. Russo and colleagues (2018) describe five principles of educationally rich mathematical games. According to them mathematical games should be engaging and generate mathematical discussions, should appropriately balance skill and luck, explore important mathematical concepts, and enable the practice of key skills, should be modifiable or inherently be able to cater to a variety of learners, and should strengthen home-school connections by providing opportunities to foster the same. Well-designed games have the potential to fulfill the characteristics of playful learning opportunities. Zosh and colleagues (2017) discuss five characteristics of playful learning experiences. They suggest that irrespective of whether a play activity is closer to free play, guided play, or games, optimal learning through play happens if the activity is (1) experienced as joyful, (2) is meaningful to the child, (3) actively engaging, (4) involves iterative thinking (e.g., hypothesis testing, experimentation), and (5) is socially interactive. Similarly, other scholars have also identified behavioral and dispositional criteria to identify play characteristics. White (2012) lists the following criteria of play: pleasurable, intrinsically motivated, process-oriented (means more important than the end), freely chosen (spontaneous and voluntary), actively 32 engaging, and non-literal (involves make-believe). If used appropriately, games can have many of the aforementioned play characteristics. While rules and goals are perhaps the most cited characteristics of games, scholars are also interested in other elements like - Feedback, outcomes, choice, fun, interest, feelings of immersion, pleasure, engagement, interactivity, competition, challenge, and fantasy (Gee, 2007; Squire, 2007). Scholars like Squire (2007) and Gee (2007) have noticed several characteristics of games that are common with modern learning theories. They have pointed out that underlying good games are good learning theories. By diverting our attention to the learning process (and not necessarily the specific content mastery), we can focus on the more dynamic skills and the emotional engagement of children with these learning behaviors. On the play spectrum, both games and guided play are seen as adult-initiated but child- directed while possessing specific learning goals (Zosh et al., 2018). Unlike guided play where the focus is on the timely and quality intervention by the adult to provide guidance, with unsupervised games, the focus may shift to the design of the game, the affordances of the environment, and classroom culture. The lack of supervision by the adult ensures that the children's autonomy and freedom to guide their play is given increased importance than usual game play. Skene and colleagues (2022) mention that the idea of adults providing guidance and extending the learning opportunity for children is inspired by the Vygotskian idea of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The Zone of Proximal Development is “the space between what a learner can do without assistance and what a learner can do with adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Though not used by Vygotsky himself, scaffolding is a popular term used in conjunction with the idea of ZPD. Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) developed scaffolding to describe adults assisting children during the ZPD to 33 provide them with the opportunity to accomplish tasks they would otherwise not be able to complete. Scaffolding is a temporary structure or support, which can be put in place, strengthened, taken down incrementally, or removed completely, depending on the child's development as she becomes increasingly competent and independent. Lave and Wenger (1991) show that in contrast with scaffolding, which captures teaching performance as a one-way process, ZPD emphasizes collaboration and negotiation between teacher and student. During scaffolding, the scaffold is constructed by the scaffolder alone, and presented to the novice learner (Daniels, 2002). Scaffolding is a metaphor that is designed to describe the processes of intervention and support during learning as a socially constructed process; however, it lacks to tap into the other potential and arguably the more powerful source of guidance - peers. As a means of extending the learning opportunities offered by guided play, the role and contribution of peers has not been sufficiently assessed. We often overlook that children may learn more effectively from other peers than from adults (Gray, 2013). Research question It is within this context of not having enough knowledge about the efficacy of using games for playful learning, especially as they relate to higher-order skills and not just content knowledge that this study was conceptualized. The focus of this study was (i) on the process (as opposed to the outcome) of playful learning, (ii) using an expanded and holistic understanding of learning, (iii) on the play experience as opposed to determining the efficacy of a specific toy/game (iv) at the communal rather than the individual experiences, and (v) focused on tweens and young adolescents and not young children. The study also centers on unsupervised play with minimal intervention from the adults. It looks at the support provided by the peers as the guidance for extending learning and creating the learning environment. This study seeks to 34 answer the research question: What are some of the salient aspects of unsupervised play with (math) games, and how do they relate to playing as learning? It must be noted that the observations are contextual to the research setting. Analysis I had about eight hours of video footage of children’s play experience with the games. After the initial cleaning of the video data and matching the audio files to the video files, I saved all the files on a qualitative analysis software. I followed a deductive coding framework (discussed subsequently) to review the video footage of the children playing with the games and assign codes to the episodes. Selection of episode To recap, my attempt was to understand - What are some of the salient aspects of unsupervised play with (math) games, and how do they relate to playing as learning? Additionally, I focused on the experience of the children at a collective rather than individual level. Hence, rather than focusing on individual members, I focused on ideas that the majority of the group members were paying attention to. I decided to split the videos according to the focus of conversation/activity. My clue for identifying an episode was the change in the central idea/concept that the majority of the group members were attending at any point in time. Since most of the games (except for Picasso Tiles) invited turns among the players, the change in turn often corresponded to change in the central idea and hence prefaced a new episode. However, a change in turn (or player) did not necessarily mean a corresponding change in the episode and vice-versa. If the groups continued to attend to an idea, the episode was continued disregarding the change in turn. Also at times, there were instances where there were two or more episodes in a player's turn as the group might have attended to multiple ideas. Similarly, at times, the group 35 discussed some ideas in between two turns. However, if an idea was revisited by the members or a qualitatively similar idea was attended to, after some time gap, it was marked as a distinct episode. The decision to focus on episodes by tracing the ideas in focus (as opposed to a fixed time bound split) allowed me to follow the central aspects of attention by the group. Additionally, it encouraged me to evaluate the interactions comprehensively and acutely with a specific focus on play and learning. Deciding if the episode was side conversation Once I had the episode delineated, I examined each of the episodes to see if it was to be analyzed further or not. Broadly, there were two cases in which the episodes were not further analyzed:(a) researcher/teacher interaction and (b) side conversation. If the attention of the group was diverted because of an external reason such as an announcement by the teacher, interaction with the researcher (about the rules / recording equipment settings), an announcement on the speaker system, a conversation initiated by some other student in the class that was not part of the playing group etc. it was marked as secondary interaction. An episode was marked as a side conversation when the topic of attention was not directly related to either the games or the play experience. As discussed later, most of the time (about 99%) the conversation was centered around play, and it was relatively straightforward to mark the episode for further analysis. Assigning a code to the episode using the OPAL Protocol The focus of this study was (i) on the process (as opposed to the outcome) of playful learning, (ii) using a more expansive and holistic understanding of learning, (c ) on the communal collective level of play rather than the individuals, (d) on the play experience as opposed to determining the efficacy of a specific toy/game and (e) focused on young adolescents and not young children. With these goals in mind, using the ‘quality of play’ framework outlined 36 by Trawick-Smith and colleagues (2014), I adapted the TEPI instrument into the ‘Observing Play as Learning-OPAL’ protocol. TEPI is one of the most frequently used research-based frameworks and provided a solid starting point as it captured the quality of play during the actual play. One could use a different framework to examine what gets children/ adolescents excited about play/learning or what happens because of such play/learning experiences. However, TEPI aligned perfectly with the goal of the current study to investigate the children’s’ experience as they engaged in the play. The three categories and the eight dimensions in TEPI provided a solid research and empirical based framework to investigate the multidimensional and complex nature of play as learning. However, TEPI in its original form wasn’t suitable for this study for several reasons. Firstly, the focus of this study was not on the toy but on the play experience. This change in focus necessitated a consequent change in the tool such that it concentrated on the nature of play and learning. Secondly, TEPI is specific to toys, whereas this study mostly used games for the play. Given the more restricted and rule bound nature of games (as opposed to toys), the description of the dimensions in TEPI were not always appropriate. Thirdly, the focus on older children (tweens and young adolescents) as opposed to younger children also prompted me to reexamine some descriptions. Fourthly, the study was focusing on the collective and not the individual experience. Considering the developmental differences between children and young adolescents and the communal (versus individual focus) the description and the methodology were accordingly modified. The names of the categories and dimensions from TEPI were mostly retained but the description was modified to reflect the focus on the salient focus outlined above. In addition to the change in the descriptions, the dimension of ‘Collaborative Problem Solving’ was specifically added to the social interaction category. The attraction, interest and engagement 37 dimension were moved as a separate fourth category. The OPAL protocol differs from TEPI structurally as well as how it's used. TEPI has a five-point scale, five being the highest and one being the lowest, for each of the eight dimensions. The TEPI raters divide the play episodes into two-minute episodes and then observe and rate each individual child at a time, generating ratings for every child in the room that plays with the toys. With the intention to simplify the observational protocol, OPAL uses only a two-way classification for the observed play as learning- High and low. OPAL’s high classification was described using the level 4 and 5 descriptions in the TEPI framework. Also, included in the OPAL protocol were indicators of low quality which were based on level 1-3 in TEPI. Methodologically, OPAL attempts to identify the most salient category and dimension for each of the episodes. Thus, unlike TEPI which generates ratings on all 8 dimensions under its three categories, OPAL maps the episode to the most salient dimension that are organized into four categories. This difference in the structure, and the methodology for OPAL enabled me to focus on an in depth understanding of the play as learning that was enacted through the play experience. Due to its open-ended structure OPAL does not prohibit the observer to superimpose the disciplinary lens. Math toys, puzzles, and close-ended games (like the ones used for this study) are seen to promote convergent mathematical thinking and problem solving and hence wherever relevant, I used the disciplinary lens to zoom into the mathematical nature of the learning. To summarize, OPAL uses the four primary categories of thinking and problem solving, creativity and imagination, social interaction, and ‘interest, curiosity, and engagement’. These categories capture the varied and holistic focus of play as learning from not only the developmental but also the academic lens. Refer to Appendix B for the OPAL protocol. 38 Choosing the category Once the episode was deemed relevant to the games and/or the play experience, it was compared against the four broad categories in the Observing Play And Learning (OPAL) protocol. It is worth mentioning that all four categories go hand in hand, and one may map any episode on all four categories (as is done with TEPI). However, for the purpose of this study, I focused on the category that was most salient in the episode. Thus, while examining an episode, I examined if the focus was predominately on ‘thinking and learning’, ‘creativity and innovation’, ‘social interaction’ or ‘interest and engagement’ and the category was determined accordingly. Choosing the dimension and deciding if the play was high quality The episode was then coded for only one of the nine dimensions. There was hence no overlap of codes. Like the predominant category, I was choosing the most salient dimension. While it was easier to distinguish and choose the salient category from among the four categories, it was much more difficult to decide the dimension. For this, the episode was compared against the description in OPAL protocol to see if it will fit into the high-quality definition or not. It is worth recalling that OPAL high classification was described using the level 4-5 description in the TEPI framework. Since the episodes were mapped on the most salient category in the earlier step, it was expected that the demonstrated action /discussion will be high quality on the chosen dimension. In case it did not conform to the high quality classification of the dimension, it was marked as low. Highlighting the salient aspects of play as learning As I was coding the videos for the play as learning, I noted the social and cultural aspects of the play experience. I added comments on the episodes using the notes feature in the coding software. Some of my comments were “telling others to speak quietly - children leading 39 the classroom management”; “children helping the peers including the competitors- playing more important than winning”; “the change in the gameplay with the change in groups - the importance of being with friends”. As I spent more time with the data, coding each episode, there were repeated trends. This helped me interpret the findings in an integrated manner and identify a few aspects that stood out for me across the unsupervised play experience with the games. Caveats Given the methodological focus of this study and use of OPAL, the findings must be interpreted with the following considerations: ● The focus is not on the game but on the play experience. While the findings were generated and are also presented disaggregated as per the various games, this is coincidental and not the core focus. ● If for a particular game, there are very few codes on a particular dimension, it does not signify the absence of that dimension. At best, one may conclude that the dimension did not emerge as the salient dimension when compared to the other dimensions. ● Individual differences between children including gender, racial background, Socioeconomic status, etc. were not focused upon. ● I was looking at the group and not individual children and hence the findings do not speak for how equitable the participation of each student in the group was. Findings I present the findings in two parts. In the first part, three vignettes are presented to provide a detailed perspective into how the children’s unsupervised play with the games looked. In the second part, I look across the vignettes to discuss the observed features of playing as learning. 40 Vignette 1: Picasso Tiles - ‘Persevering to Find a Creative Solution’ Tory, Mohammad, and Saul had been playing with Picasso tiles for the past 10-12 minutes (Refer to figure 5 below). They started by making a double-story house (5-a), but soon on Tory’s insistence, the challenge was to try and build the tallest tower (5-b), and then Saul implored everyone to make “The White House” (5-c) and then the group eventually took on the challenge of trying to cover the mat that they were playing on with the pieces (5-d). Figure 5: Children playing with Picasso Tiles: Setting new challenges, asking new questions, and working to satisfy their curiosity (a) The double storey house (b) the tallest tower (c) the White House (d) Covering the mat with the pieces. 41 The group begins with the bigger square pieces. As Mohammad exhausted the bigger squares and started laying down the smaller squares, he said “let’s make some math” and started to count the number of smaller squares (including those embedded within the bigger squares) that were there. While Mohammad continued to count by multiples of 4, Tory picked up the audio recorder and said “Ok, It looks like we are going to have enough but not enough squares to do it…so we would probably have to add the triangles and probably have to figure this out”. Mohammad finished counting and he declared “we have 54 squares right now” (8 big squares making 32 small squares pieces and remaining small squares at that point)..to which Saul responded “that’s a lot!” There were several instances of problem posing and problem solving as the three of them exhausted the bigger squares, smaller squares, the smaller right angled isosceles triangles (that could be combined to form the smaller squares), while they covered the mat. When they ran out of the smaller equilateral triangles (which tessellated perfectly) and tried putting in the larger isosceles triangles, the pieces did not tessellate, leaving a slight gap (See figure 5-d). This was not good enough for the group as Saul said, “how are we gonna get this?” pointing at the gap. And this spurred an animated and amazingly coordinated collective effort to find a solution. While keeping the smaller equilateral triangles in the row, they tried multiple ways (including reorienting the pieces, rearranging the pieces, trying to replace the smaller squares etc.) to get the pieces to fit together perfectly (Figure 6). 42 Figure 6: The various strategies that were tried out to get the pieces to tessellate so that there is no gap The three friends attempted various combinations and arrangements of the shapes, including Tory hesitantly moving the smaller square to see if that might solve the issue (Figure 7-a). Frustrated with the failures, Tory exclaimed as he put the smaller square back, “I don’t really care. Just put it anyways”. While Tory announced this impasse on the audio recorder, seeing his two friends continuing to work on the challenge he joined back in trying to fit different pieces. At this stage, with frantic attempts and multiple strategies tried, Saul recommended that they remove the smaller equilateral triangles (which were tessellating) from the top row while declaring to the camera, “These (the smaller triangles) are going to be last” (7- b). The final solution that they arrived at was to combine pairs of the larger isosceles triangles into a quadrilateral and use it instead of the smaller triangles in the penultimate row. The smaller equilateral triangles now formed the last row of pieces (7-c) . While the top left row of the mat 43 was still uncovered as they ran out of all the 100 pieces in the game, they realized that the other mat was smaller than the mat in front. The new challenge decided by the group was to cover the other mat (which was smaller in size) instead (7-d). Figure 7: The students’ bold move to remove the top row and use the quadrilaterals (made by combining the bigger triangles) to tessellate the pieces (a) Tory hesitantly moves the smaller (b) Saul declaring “ these are going to be last”. green square and tries adjusting it. (c) The final solution (d) Moving on to the new challenge - covering the smaller mat Vignette 2: Clumsy Thief – ‘Inventing Mathematical Methods’ Mohammad and David were paired up and playing Clumsy Thief, against the other pair of Missi and Stefi when they encountered an issue. There were not enough cards for everyone to start a new round (everyone was supposed to pull from the main pile of cards till they had seven cards). Mohammad pointed this out to the group and said “we have to restart, we don’t have 44 enough”. Stefi (who only has three cards) agreed “we can restart” while Missi bent down to count the remaining cards in the main pile and discovered that there were nine cards in the main pile. Meanwhile, David resisted “I am not done, I don’t think ….(inaudible)”. At this point Missi suggested that “we can each have two cards”. David found this suggestion agreeable and grabbed two cards from the main pile, and was followed hurriedly by the others, leaving the one remaining card in the main pile. As Missi announced, “I already got a match, Mohammad announced, “there is one” and picked up the last card from the main pile. At this point, Stefi asks, “David, how many (cards) do you have?” and when she discovers that he has seven and realizing that Stefi and she only have three cards each, Missi says “we all have to have the same amount”. After some initial hesitancy (perhaps because he had his seven cards), David took the five cards that Mohammad had and shuffled them up. But at this point, he did not know how to distribute the twelve cards that he now had equally among the four players with Missi and Stefi having three cards already. As he mumbled some numbers, unsure of how to go about it, he asked “Wait , how do I do it?” (figure 8-a). Stefi suggested “wait, give each of you guys three first and then we will deal them out”. David gives three cards to Mohammad and himself and distributes the remaining cards one at a time, with the extra card left in the center. 45 Figure 8: Dividing the cards equally among the players (a) David (left) - “Wait, how do I do it?” (b) David gives 3 cards to Mohammad (c) Play resuming with all players having and himself (matching the girls equal number of cards and the extra pair) and distributes the remaining card discarded in the center. cards one at a time among everyone. Vignette 3: Labyrinth - ‘Changing the Rules of the Game’ It was the first time Felix and Brady played Labyrinth (see figure 9). They had played with it for about twenty minutes when Felix, as he struggled to reach a particular target piece (and win the card for it), proposed “If we are moving pieces does that also mean we can rotate them please? Because this one is…(inaudible)”. Brady was fine with that and readily said “Yes”. Felix had most probably already calculated that this flexibility will allow him to reach a 46 particular piece and he rejoiced “yeah!”. Felix went on to rotate a piece and moved his counter to the target piece as he declared “I got it, so I get to go again”. In his second turn, as he tried to rotate another piece, Brady said “No. You can rotate only one per time you go”. As explained later, Brady was negotiating that the flexibility to rotate the piece is valid only for one turn (and not extra turns, that a player may earn upon winning a card). It was now Brady’s turn. His target piece was on the top right corner and as he contemplated his move, he confirmed with Felix the new rules about moving the pieces- “So you can rotate pieces?”. Brady was eyeing the straight path available on the bottom right side of the board except for one card that was not aligning. As he rotated that piece (9b) (which by itself was insufficient) he said, “So you can rotate as many pieces as you want”, in a tone that suggested that he was trying to see if Felix opposes this idea. Hearing no opposition, he rotated a second piece (9c), while qualifying his proposal “but it (multiple rotations) has to be only in your one turn”. He then slid the pieces and inserted the piece in his hand (9d), (a move allowed by the original game rules) and moved his blue counter along the left and subsequently bottom periphery of the board. At this point, Felix asked “Is your turn done?”. With two pieces already turned and sliding a row once, but still far from his target, Brady asserted “No, like I said, you can rotate as many pieces as you want”. He goes on to rotate the two adjoining pieces multiple times and moves his counter between the two pieces simultaneously to finally create a path towards the top right corner of the board (9e). This clever strategy (and arguably disputable hack) was appreciated by Felix as he said, “this is really cool”. As Brady announced, “Now my turn is over”, Felix realized that Brady had used more than nine rotations in his turn, and said “Actually, you can only rotate three pieces from now on” (9f). Brady agreed and this was the modified rule that they played with for the rest of the game. 47 Figure 9: Negotiating and re-inventing the game rules (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Salient Aspects and the Potential of Unsupervised Play with Games Before I present the four key aspects based on my observation of play as learning using the OPAL protocol, I would like to revisit the two core ideas relevant to how the play experience with the game was transacted:(a) it was unsupervised and (b) it was with peers in a mixed-aged 48 Montessori classroom. As detailed earlier, the children played the games in unsupervised settings. The children could change the rules, change partners, choose not to play, etc. They had the freedom to drive the play as they pleased. The attempt was to move the play closer to the core characteristics of free play by allowing for children's autonomy. Additionally, the games were played with peers in a mixed-aged setting. Schools provide a unique opportunity where children can engage with other children in a similar age bracket and learn with and from them. Mixed-age grouping is a common characteristic of many progressive educational approaches and is seen as contributing to the children's development and learning (Aina, 2001). The study utilized this affordance to tap into peers as a source of guidance and support for the play as learning. The unsupervised and the peer-led nature transformed the play experience and moved it closer to free play than what is typically ascribed to play with games. The four key features as observed during this study are as follows: The play experience was highly attractive and engaging for the learners. The unsupervised play experiences detailed in the vignettes provide glimpses of how involved and engaged the children were, during the play experience. This was also evidenced in the overall quantitative analysis of the deductive coding process. As discussed in the analysis section, one of the initial steps was to decide if the children's interactions were relevant to the game or the play experience. Only such interactions (episodes) were further analyzed and coded. It was marked as a side conversation if the episode was not relevant to either the game or the play experience. Out of the total 885 episodes that were identified across all the videos, only 23 (2.6% by quantity) were marked as side conversations. Only about 2.7% of the episodes were coded as side conversations in terms of duration of time. In practical terms, this meant that for a 49 typical play session of 60 minutes, the children were involved in game-related conversations for about 58 minutes. This idea was also supported by my observations while collecting the data. Children were delighted to have each of the play sessions. They hurried to get their ‘work’ done and eagerly wanted to get permission from the class teacher to start playing. While engaged in the play, they made several comments about liking/loving the games. Some expressed interest in purchasing the games for their home and wanting to play it with their family. The children took minimal breaks, including using the restrooms, while the 60-90 minutes they played with the games. Some children expressed interest in continuing to play the games during recess rather than going outside to play. The high interest and attraction towards the play experience were observed for all the games. Children played for the entire duration that was available to them and played as many rounds as possible, which indicated that they desired the play experience. This proves that most games were highly effective in attracting and retaining the student's attention. Out of my initial selection of nine toys, the children decided not to play with ‘Dominoes’ and the ‘Proof’ games after the first two sessions. The gameplay with those toys was not included in the analysis and consequently in the findings above. However, the play experience with the seven games that the children selected and played with was attractive for the children, and they were highly involved in the play. The children’s body language and face visible in the images used to describe the vignettes may give an idea of how interested, involved, and engaged they were during the gameplay. The ability to pose problems, solve challenges, set the difficulty level, vary the rules, and a mistake-friendly environment seemed to have contributed to the high interest expressed by the students. The Picasso Tiles Vignette (#1) provides an example of how the children could be 50 curious and set challenges for themselves. As explained in the introduction to vignette and depicted in Figure 5, the children had set various challenges like constructing a double-story house, the tallest tower, the white house etc., before they decided to explore if they could cover the mat. The vignette describes how just one of these challenges (covering the mat) had various instances that powered their involvement in the play/learning experience. This was true for all the other challenges as well. Figure 10 visually describes the other challenges that the children set as they continued playing with the Picasso Tiles. It must be noted that the engagement was rooted in the disciplinary nature of the play, as the underlying play was always mathematical. Figure 10: At the end of vignette 1, the game with Picasso Tiles continued with many other challenges set by the three children Another factor contributing to the high involvement and engagement could have been the non-evaluative environment, mainly how they felt part of the learning community and negotiated struggle. As alluded to in the Picasso-Tiles Vignette (#1), Tory, at one point, felt frustrated with being unable to find a satisfying solution and stated, "I don't really care. Just put it anyways" and physically distanced himself from the mat and instead -went on to announce about the challenge on the audio recorder. However, as he saw the other two children working on the problem, he re- joined immediately after. The issue of why the children found the play experience exciting and engaging is captured in my conversation with Tory, who mentioned that he doesn't like the hard stuff in math. When I probed him further as to why that was the case, he said "because I cannot 51 do it on my own and other people can". This points to how the children compared their performance with others and did not like if they were unable to do something when others could. When I asked Tory why he continued challenging himself during the gameplay, he said "if it is hard and fun, I will continue to do it, but if it's hard and boring, I will probably give up!" I asked him if he thinks math is hard to which he replied, "No, Math is easy…but sometimes it's hard, it's not fun; if we are having fun…if we are playing, then it's fun." Even as the children struggled to tessellate the pieces, they looked at the alternative attempts, not as mistakes, and persevered through it. Despite being unsupervised, the play was high quality learning. The children's unsupervised play experience was not only attractive for the children, but it facilitated high-quality learning as revealed by the analysis of codes assigned using the ‘Observing play as learning-OPAL’ protocol. Once the episodes marked as side conversations were excluded, each of the remaining episodes was coded for one of the nine dimensions (see analysis section for details). Out of the 862 episodes that were examined at this stage, 853 (99% by quantity) were coded as high-quality playful learning. In other words, only 1% of the episodes related to the game/ play experience could not meet the ‘high quality description of either of the nine dimensions. In terms of the time that was marked as relevant for analysis (and not categorized as side conversation), about 98% was coded as high quality of play as learning. Thus, in terms of time, the children engaged in high-quality play as learning for almost 487 minutes out of the total 497 minutes of gameplay. Figure 11 below presents the proportion of each of the nine dimensions (by time) that was most salient across the episodes for each of the seven games. As it may be seen, the most salient dimensions were from the thinking and learning category (indicated by the red and orange color dots). This was perhaps due to the mathematical 52 nature of the games. The social nature of the gameplay was also captured in the predominance of the two green- and yellow-colored dots. The black and brown color dots indicate the interest, curiosity, and engagement-related codes. Lastly, despite their close-ended, largely computational, problem-solving-oriented nature, the games inspired creativity (dark blue dots) and ‘imagination and transformation of reality through pretend play (light blue dots). As discussed in the analysis section, it must be recalled that an episode corresponded to multiple dimensions and was coded only for the one that was most salient. When a particular game has a high incidence of any dimension /category, it does not suggest that the other dimensions were necessarily low/absent. The finding only indicates the salience of a particular code. In fact, the holistic presence of each of the dimensions across the gameplay was striking as I coded the episodes. Figure 11: The proportion of codes (by time) segregated according to the four categories and nine dimensions in OPAL Prime Climb BlockUs Labyrinth MathdicE 53 Figure 11 (cont’d) Clumsy Thief Chroma Cubes PicassoTiles The color codes The specific episodes (for the focused duration described in the vignettes above) were coded for the following dimensions: Picasso Tiles Vignette #1 (construction of new knowledge, critical thinking, and collaborative problem solving; Clumsy Thief Vignette #2 (construction of new knowledge); and Labyrinth Vignette #3 (critical thinking and creative expression). With Picasso Tiles, the children used critical thinking as they used varied problem solving and decision-making skills while evaluating the alternative solutions. As they combined the bigger isosceles triangles to make the regular quadrilateral, they 'constructed new knowledge' about the composition and decomposition of the shapes. The ways that each child coordinated and collaborated to reach the solution step seemed like a perfect example of a group in 54 synchronization as exemplified collaborative problem-solving. The Clumsy Thief Vignette #2 captures how the children 'constructed new knowledge' about partitive division as they shared the 21 cards equally among the four members. While they started with giving 3 cards to each member, the next eight were dealt out one by one and the remaining card was left in the central pile. As I interacted with the children to see if they wanted to use division as one of the operations for Prime Climb and MathDice, most children expressed their ignorance of how to divide. While they understood how to do the other three basic operations, they were not conversant with the procedure for division per se. Given this fact, the solution strategy for distributing the cards was remarkable. The children not only invented an algorithm for partitive division they also considered that starting with three cards for everyone could be expeditious and thereafter they could just deal one card to each and discard the remainder. The Labyrinth Vignette #3, describing the students' attempt to modify the game's rules, demonstrates children's critical thinking as they tried various re- orientations of the tile pieces to create a path. The vignette also provides an example of how the children used the games to create novel situations that were unique and unconventional. The play experience encouraged divergent thinking as the students negotiated and decided on the modified rules. Importantly, it may also be noticed how all the vignettes corresponded to multiple dimensions (including those that were not coded for). The coded dimensions were only the most salient. For example, one may see how such an engaged experience might have contributed to increasing the interest and engagement in the play, but none of the episodes in the three vignettes were coded for it as it was not the salient dimension. Thus, as we focus on the process of learning from the perspective of the four categories described in OPAL, it is evident that the experience of children with the selected games was 55 overwhelmingly high-quality play as learning. While there were minor differences among the games that were used, largely all the games inspired high-quality playful learning that was mathematical at its core. With the children directing the unsupervised play, the constraints were reimagined as boundaries. As discussed earlier, in guided play, the children's play environments may be constrained to varying degrees by the adults to promote the educational goal. The conditions placed by the adults may restrict the game to channelize it in the direction of the learning goals. However, in unsupervised play, the children effectively have a veto power to honor (or not) the conditions imposed. Some examples of the kinds of conditions imposed were: the (math) content embedded in the games; the rules and the structure of the game itself; and the grouping structure including the pairing of children to play together as a team. The vignettes above indicate that despite the freedom, the children decided to retain most of these conditions, most of the time. Concerning the first and most noticeable condition, in the above vignettes, the connection of the learning experience to content topics like, tessellation, composing and decomposing shapes, estimation, area etc. (vignette 1), developing a sense for partitive division (vignette 2), and reorientation of shapes (vignette 3) are easy to make. Even if we were to examine the above vignettes from the limited lens of achievement (or not) of specific content mastery, the vignettes would provide evidence of how the play experience was replete with learning. It was interesting to note that the content focus of the games was evident to the children. They saw the games as mathematical. The children embraced this connection to the mathematical nature. Some quotations from the students exemplify that they liked the integrated nature of math into the games. 56 “The learning that happens at school does not have that much fun into it, because you have to really know the answers and then you get it wrong….then you have to restart all over again but when you have the games, it's really fun because you get to learn and you get to have fun at the same time and it helps you learn better than having to struggle with your math work”. (Student 1 impromptu interaction on the TV) “When I am doing like normal (school) math, it's not really a lot of fun, but when I am playing the games, it's a lot of fun because I am not doing it by myself and I am playing with a bunch of other people….Like PrimeClimb was a good math game that I liked to do…It was not because it was just a game, its because it actually is fun math. It's funny because the cards are funny and when you play it on somebody it makes…it gives everybody a laugh pretty much! (Student 2 impromptu interaction on the TV) Similarly, the children readily accepted the second condition of the game narrative or rules, and they did not attempt altering it. Compared to Picasso Tiles, the game rules were more concrete for Labyrinth and Clumsy Thief. The Labyrinth Vignette (#3) exemplifies the students' choice and ability to vary the challenge and rules as per their liking. The unsupervised play experience meant that the children felt free to do it. It was a negotiation with the peers, a dynamic and joint effort. Given the evidence from the play experience, the children just worked it out among themselves. I did not encounter any instance where the children modified the game narrative (the main plot) of any of the games. In fact, they seem to appreciate and enjoy the game's main plot. For example, the elements contributing to the main plot in Clumsy Thief were about the thief stealing the cards and jail cards securing the pile so that a thief could not steal it. The anecdotal evidence of the children playing the game showed how the children loved this plotline. The element of luck (depending upon the cards you drew), 'schadenfreude' of changing fortunes by stealing other cards, etc. seemed to contribute to the children's experience of enjoying the game. 57 Again, the grouping conditions imposed on the students was not actively opposed by the students. These grouping conditions came in two forms. Firstly, the children had to decide the players with whom they would play the games. It was observed that children preferred playing with their close friends, but if this was not possible for reasons such as, wanting to try out a new game or if their close friends were unavailable, they did not mind it. The second way that the current study imposed conditions on the grouping, was by modifying teams (where a pair of students competed against the other pair and could share all their strategies, moves, cards etc.). This modification also gave additional reasons for the partnering pair to share their strategies, collaborate with each other, and contribute to each other's understanding. In either of these two grouping scenarios, the children did not make an active effort to change their groups. However, the quality of play seemed richer and evidenced more 'flow' episodes when the children were playing with their close friends (Sharma & Parks, forthcoming). Also, there were several instances where the children were seen collaborating with not only their team members but also their opponents. The goal of enjoying the game seemed to supersede the goal of winning the game. The condition of playing the game with others thus did not seem to appear as a constraint. On the other hand, it seemed to contribute to the play experience. As discussed, it was observed that the children operated within the conditions and yet did not subvert it, despite having substantial freedom for it. The children perhaps interpreted and negotiated the conditions differently than constraints. Constraints are usually associated with restriction, checks, control, hindrances, obstruction, etc. However, the conditions were treated more as boundaries rather than constraints. The conditions provided the border, bounds, limits, margin, and edges within which the play was conducted. These boundaries could be altered, crossed, or even demolished if the group consented to it, but this was rarely observed. The 58 boundaries seemed to help keep the play focused and provide an overall structure without necessarily constraining the play. The play experience allowed for moving away from adult's control to creating a classroom community driven by peer support. The vignettes above provide a sneak preview of how the play experience consisted of multiple instances of children owning the thinking process, amicable conflict resolution (intellectual and social), rich peer-to-peer discourse, and collaborative problem-solving. The need for adult intervention across the play experience was minimal. All these signs pointed towards how the unsupervised play created a productive culture and a thinking community of supportive peers. The high ownership for the thinking and problem-solving process is exemplified in all three vignettes. The students wanted to solve difficult challenges and did not shy from working towards them. In the Picasso Tiles vignette (#1), this meant going through multiple attempts to find the best solution, and in the Clumsy Thief vignette (#3), this took the form of ensuring that they did not abandon the round when the number of cards fell below a certain number. Instead, the children figured out a way to distribute the existing number of cards fairly. The presence of high ownership did not preclude the occurrences of intellectual and social conflicts during the play. However, most of these conflicts were resolved by the children in intellectually integral and socially amicable ways without any adult intervention whatsoever. The vignettes above show how the frequent intellectual conflicts were resolved. For the Labyrinth vignette (#3), how the two children proposed new rules and negotiated the details around it perfectly exemplifies children's capability to do it. They discussed the new rules, and as the game progressed, they 59 made modifications to them until the new rules were spelled out clearly and agreeable to both sides. All three vignettes also demonstrate how the children engaged in rich mathematical, social, and socio-mathematical (Cobb & Yackel, 1996) discourse. The mathematical discourse was related to the games' mathematical nature. The vignettes above show how the underlying issue was mathematical: tessellation, fair division, number of ideal rotations to reorient the tile pieces. The vignettes also show that group members were not left behind or excluded during the play. The process followed by the students to arrive at the rules in vignette #3 reflects the social norm around joint agreement before proceeding. Similarly, the action of Tory to re-engage with the problem-solving process during Picasso Tiles vignette #1, after he was frustrated with the repeated failure at arriving at a reasonable resolution, is indicative of the social norm of moving with the group. Bowers and colleagues (1999) pointed out that examples of sociomathematical norms include what counts as a different, sophisticated, or insightful mathematical solution and what is regarded as an acceptable mathematical explanation. The vignettes again show how the children engaged in discourse that pertained to these aspects. For example, In vignette 1, Saul identified the problem that the pieces were not tessellating perfectly and pointed at the gap. It was an excellent example of the resulting sociomathematical discourse as the other two students acknowledged it and accepted the challenge to tessellate the pieces thoroughly. The other feature of the highly productive and rich learning experience was its collaborative and communal nature. This was especially visible in how the children collaborated to set up challenges and solve problems. The PicassoTiles and Labyrinth vignettes especially relate to how each member contributed to promoting the inherent learning opportunity. 60 Researchers distinguish between cooperation and collaboration in the context of group work. Roschelle and Teasley (1995) state that “cooperation is accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving” whereas collaboration is exemplified by the “mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together” (p. 70). The vignettes provide examples of student-to-student collaboration. An established finding of the TIMPANI (Toys that Inspire Mindful Play and Nurture Imagination) study is that children - don't always choose to play with toys that inspire the highest quality play (Rouleau, 2020). However, the findings of the current study indicate that the choice of the game mattered only in the sense of giving children the freedom to choose from an initial pool of games. Subsequently, letting them have the freedom to choose their play partners, modify rules, and play as per their own wish seemed important in how the children determined the direction and quality of the experience. The children selected their favorite games from among a set of choices provided. More importantly, irrespective of the game, the children's play, and learning experience was high quality while there were differences in their exact nature. The study did not focus on what was the reason for the students' selection/ rejection of the games. Also, it did not compare which was the favorite game or most engaging or the characteristics that make them such. Another important conclusion from the TIMPANI study that may be relevant is that educators can offer families support in selecting toys for their children. This seems true to the extent that the educators can highlight the importance of focusing on the multidimensional nature of play and learning and collaborative learning opportunities. A classroom provides a unique environment where children can form a community with other children of their age and learn with and from each other. The other finding relates to the efficacy of unsupervised play 61 with games. This becomes important as it liberates the adults (educators and parents) of the expectation to be monitoring or supervising the children's play for quality. If the initial choice of games is correct and given enough freedom, the children can self-organize their play experience to transform play into high-quality learning. Discussion Toub (2018) states that "currently, and for centuries, our educational system has been dominated by an approach that emphasizes adult-directed instruction delivered to relatively passive children” (pp.117-118). The study indicates an alternative possibility. By presenting the details of selected vignettes and reviewing the four features generated via deductive coding analysis and synthesized observations, the study's findings illustrate the potential of unsupervised play with games. I have organized the discussion under two main headings. First, I talk about the potential of unsupervised games to promote learning. Second, I propose that unsupervised games with peers should be conceptualized distinctly from games, and therefore as distinct from play that is scaffolded by adults. Unsupervised Play with Games can Enable High Quality of Play as Learning and Contribute to the Learning Community Unsupervised play with games can enable high-quality learning in (math) content and across productive learning domains like thinking, problem-solving, creativity, imagination, social interaction, interest, curiosity, and engagement. The findings from the study also hint at cultural shifts that might be triggered by giving more control and autonomy to children as they drive their learning. Liljedahl (2016) described a thinking classroom as one "that is not only conducive to thinking but also occasions thinking, a space that is inhabited by thinking individuals as well as individuals thinking collectively, learning together, and constructing 62 knowledge and understanding through activity and discussion (p. 364)." The findings of this study hinted at this collective culture of thinking. Children learn mathematics by doing mathematics, and by doing mathematics, they learn mathematics (Cai, 2010). The findings demonstrate the potential of using games for engaging students in non-routine, unpredictable problem-solving behaviors and helping the children to be the “doers” (Boaler, 2009) of mathematics without relying upon adult guidance. Researchers have highlighted the fundamental inseparability of learning from engagement and agree on the malleability of engagement and the potential impact that curriculum and instructional decisions can have on students’ Learning (Middleton et al., 2016; Boaler, 2000). I agree with Zolob (2014) when he asserts that “learning should be fun, exciting and intriguing. Students should want to learn for the sheer joy of learning. Children and young adults alike are fascinated and open to the wonders and complexities of life. School should be an extension of these experiences” (p. 2). Play experience with the games provided an example of how such an opportunity could be created. Middleton and colleagues (2016) share that with proper instruction, including open-ended tasks, positive classroom interactions, and high teacher expectations, it is possible to positively impact the ‘in the moment' engagement. The unsupervised gameplay provided most of these conditions. It is these ‘in the moment’ engaging experiences expressed cognitively, affectively and/or behaviorally that lead to more enduring long-term beliefs. Unsupervised Play is a Distinct Category Under Playful Learning Unsupervised play with games presents a unique case under the umbrella of playful learning. The core rationale behind the adult intervention in guided play is that it can extend the child's play in a manner that is not possible for the child. While this may be true for younger 63 children, adult guidance may not necessarily be the most productive for tweens and young adolescents. The unsupervised play with games presents an alternative view of instructional guidance. The guidance comes not from the adult but from (a) the design of the game material, (b) classroom norms, and (c) the peers. The design of the game constrains and hence focuses the learning opportunities, while the unsupervised, non-mandatory behavioral expectations and cultural norms free the children to direct the play in a manner that they like (honoring many elements of free play). The peers may guide the play by serving as the accountability partners, checking, controlling, and influencing the thinking and engagement of the children in the play group. How unsupervised gameplay was enacted for this study, reifies this possibility. While retaining the games' constraints (and hence learning focus), the adult control was minimized at every stage of the play experience. This included providing choice to the children to select the games, choice to play (or not), select play partners, modify rules, and perhaps most importantly, no adult supervision or intervention. Thus, adult control was less than what is typically expected in guided play. 64 Figure 12: Unsupervised play conceptualized as a distinct category from games and lower than guided play in terms of adult control Adapted from Toub, T. S., Rajan, V., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Guided play: A solution to the play versus learning dichotomy. (p.122) The lesser control by the adult might mean that unsupervised games may be distinct from games and lower than guided play on the control dimension (indicated by the green cloud). Additionally, as discussed earlier, the constraints may be (re) interpreted and (re)negotiated by the children as boundaries primarily because of the presence of the veto power that they have over the adult-initiated constraints of the games. If (re)negotiated, the constraints in unsupervised 65 play may also be lower than is usually associated with games. This possible (re)negotiation is indicated by the dashed periphery of the green cloud. Thus, unsupervised play with games deserves to be seen as distinct from games as we usually understand them. Conclusion Changing the ABC of schools into a truly playful learning experience Schools have been associated with inducing fear, boredom, disengagement, subjugation, and feelings of inadequacy among those being educated (Lees & Noddings,2016). Schooling has come to be associated with sins (Gray, 2013) and educational wounds (Olson, 2009). These observations remind me of the prognosis by John Holt in his book How Children Fail (1964). For him, the ABC of school is related to children being afraid, bored, and confused. Holt (1964) stated: “Almost all children . . . fail to develop more than a tiny part of the tremendous capacity for learning, understanding and creating with which they were born and of which they made full use during the first two or three years of their lives. Why do they fail? They fail because they are afraid, bored, and confused” (p.9). I join Wolk (2008) in wondering “if the experience of ‘doing school’ destroys children's spirit to learn, their sense of wonder, their curiosity about the world, and their willingness to care for the human condition, have we succeeded as educators, no matter how well our students do on standardized tests” (p.1). Playful learning can be an important enabler in transforming the school into a fun and engaging learning experience. To transform schools and integrate playful learning, we need to differentiate learning (as a process) from achievement (as a static outcome). The work of scholars like Lave and Wenger (1991) emphasized that knowledge is relational, negotiated, and always situated within a community of practice. Wenger (1998) argued that three 66 modes of belonging characterize how identities are constructed within communities of practice. He termed these modes engagement, imagination, and alignment. Engagement refers to how one participates in a community of practice. Imagination refers to how one sees oneself as being connected to a broader community of doers, and alignment refers to how actions within that community come to be aligned toward a broader common purpose. For the children, the unsupervised play with the games seemed to touch upon each of the three modes of belonging and evidenced a strong classroom community. Unsupervised play with games should be examined for their affordances and limitations. The promising findings of this study indicate how unsupervised play with games can help educators make an easy start in transforming how learning looks like in our schools. 67 Chapter 3: Exploration of Children’s Experience of Joyful Learning Through Unsupervised Play with (math) Games/Toys Abstract This study uses hermeneutic phenomenological data to answer the research question: How do children experience ‘joy through learning’ while playing unsupervised with (math) toys? The study investigates children’s lived experiences of joyful learning through play at a public Montessori School in the United States of America. The four core pillars of this research are (a) capturing the nebulous concept of joy as it relates to (b) a broader conceptualization of learning focusing on the process of learning and peers as support (c) foregrounding the voices and perspectives of children, and (d) unraveling children's experience of the phenomenon of joy from a collective, rather than a solely individual lens. Udvari-Solner (2012) observed that there are currently no formal investigations using the conceptualization of joyful learning. Also, the research on the emotional and social dimension of play, specifically on play with games (toys) is very limited (Trawick-Smith, Russell, & Swaminathan, 2011). The current study fills these gaps and extends the work around the popular pedagogical approach of guided play by focusing on unsupervised play where the play/learning is guided by the peers. Further, by focusing on upper primary grade children the study reveals how joy, and playful learning deserves attention not only at the early childhood or early primary grades. Given the increasing disengagement of children from schooling, play can serve as a natural springboard to infuse joy into the learning process. The findings are presented along six themes: Freedom, Friendships, Fantasy, Fun, Fascination and Flow. The ‘6F’ model offered by the study offers a window into the lived experience of children's joyful play/ learning experiences. Lumby (2011) notes that “enjoyment could be conceived as a precursor, a parallel experience, a result of learning or all three” (p. 68 252). In the spirit of this observation, the implication for practice and research are discussed with the call to make children’s learning experiences more joyful! The 6F framework offers us a means to observe, understand, and enable joyful learning. Introduction Learning is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life. It is, by its very nature, joyful. Why then, are children less happy in school than in any other settings where they spend significant amounts of time each week (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003)? Why is it that schools which are regarded as the primary site for learning fail to infuse joy, engage the children, and develop their innate curiosity (Willis, 2007; Wolk, 2008)? Gray (2013) views compulsory education (where the child does not have a choice or any voice in the affair) as forced and claims that it is this coercive system of schooling that dampens the natural learning drive of children: Children come into the world burning to learn and genetically programmed with extraordinary capacities for learning. They are little learning machines. Within their first four years or so they absorb an unfathomable amount of information and skills without any instruction...Nature does not turn off this enormous desire and capacity to learn when children turn five or six. We turn it off with our coercive system of schooling. The biggest, most enduring lesson of school is that learning is work, to be avoided when possible. (pp. x-xi) Udvari-Solner (2012) exclaims that “the implicit messages sent to students and families are that schooling is simply work and drudgery, if you are having a sense of enjoyment or fun, learning will not be effective and that joy should be earned or even reserved for environments other than school ” (p. 1666). While raising happy children is the highest desire of parents (Diner & Lucas, 2004), many of us have internalized the message that while important, learning and joy 69 are somehow incongruous. What can we do to transform schools into not only sites of learning, but sites of joy; sites that help children flourish, be their best, and all those things that we read in the vision statements of many schools but rarely see translated into action? While joy deserves to be an important goal in itself, even its instrumental importance for learning should give us a reason to recognize its criticality. Students’ feelings, experiences, and conceptions about school and education are inextricably related to the quality of the student’s learning (Kohn, 2004a; 2004b). Lumby (2011) notes that “enjoyment could be conceived as a precursor, a parallel experience, a result of learning or all three” (p. 252). Researchers have pointed out that an absence of enjoyment can be a foundational reason for young individuals failing to realize their potential (Shernoff et al., 2003). The importance of joy in a learning situation is most evident when the situation lacks it (Rantala et al., 2016). Joy is usually seen primarily in terms of the ‘broaden and build’ theory. The theory suggests that like other positive emotions, joy expands our thoughts and actions to facilitate the learning of novel modes of thought and behavior (Fredrickson & Levenson, 1998). According to Johnson (2020), joy “provides the individual with the opportunity to learn new cognitive and behavioral skills and forge new social relationships and skills, which enhances resilience to future obstacles or threats” (p. 6). Joy and engagement are thus essential elements of learning and its increasing absence from schools and educational settings should be worrying for anyone concerned about the wellbeing of our children. Given the increasing disengagement of children from schooling, play can serve as a natural springboard to infuse joy into the learning process. Gray (2013) characterizes playfulness, curiosity, and sociability as natural motivators of education and suggests that the current schooling system could capitalize on these natural educational drives by allowing 70 children time and opportunity to play and direct their learning. According to him, “the predominant emotions of play are interest and joy” (p. 18). There is also an ongoing debate to reorient play from being valued only as an instrumental factor (for academic learning of content objectives) to being valued for its developmental benefits like social-emotional skills, general cognitive development, and self-regulation abilities (Pyle & Danniels, 2017). Natural educational drives like curiosity and playfulness can be vital in promoting positive feelings, productive behaviors, and dispositions among children. Play, in general, and in games and toys, in particular, has been associated with enjoyment and engagement (White, 2012; Gray, 2013). However, the research on the emotional and social dimension of play, specifically on play with games and toys, is limited (Trawick-Smith, Russell, & Swaminathan, 2011). Play is replete with opportunities to experience positive emotions. The positive affective factors like pride, interest, gratitude, satisfaction, enjoyment, hope, belonging, camaraderie, community, etc. impact productive beliefs that eventually lead to academic gains and children’s well-being and flourishing (Bernardo & Villavicencio, 2016; Stankov & Lee, 2017; Zosh et al., 2017). The work related to social emotional learning (CASEL), wellbeing (Seligman), care theory and happiness in education (Nel Noddings), self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci) among other related frameworks have played their role in foregrounding the importance of positive emotions. Rantala, Uusiautti, and Määttä (2016) believe that “Positive emotions are beneficial for learning and act as catalysts” (p. 24). Lyubomirsky and colleagues (2005) indicate that positive affective experience can lead to even more positive affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes triggering a cycle in motion. Villavicencio and Bernardo (2016) state found that positive emotions are linked with flexible and creative cognitive strategies, metacognitive 71 learning strategies, greater interest in learning and greater engagement in learning tasks. They add that specifically for mathematics, research has associated positive emotions with increased confidence, greater efforts in learning, more self-regulation, and achievement benefits. The Nebulous Construct of Joy Among the positive affective factors, ‘joy’ is an important construct. Vaillant (2008) asserts that “we cannot understand human beings unless we understand joy and how joy comes to be” (p.272). Although recognized as very important across the psychological, philosophical, and spiritual/theological domains, joy has not been the subject of extensive empirical examination (Watkins et al.,2018; Sloan, 2011). One of the primary reasons for this is that joy is regarded as a non-specific positive affect and is often reduced to any positive emotional response (Watkins et. al., 2017) appearing “in discussions only as a by-product of more significant matters, such as living a good life or attaining clarity of mind” (p. 419). While some recent efforts (see Meadows, 2013; Theology of Joy and the Good Life Project2) have attempted to consolidate our understanding of joy, there is no consensus around its conceptualization, especially as it relates to children and educational experiences. There are a few frameworks and concepts (like academic engagement, flow, social- emotional learning, child wellbeing, flourishing, play) that relate with the idea of joyful learning. However, Udvari-Solner (2012) observed that there are currently no formal investigations using the terminology of conceptualization of joyful learning. According to Udvari-Solner and Kluth (2007), joyful learning refers to the positive intellectual and emotional state of the learner (s). They emphasize the importance of the process (as opposed to only the outcomes) during 2 https://faith.yale.edu/legacy-projects/theology-of-joy 72 learning. According to Udvari Solner (2012) “this state or experience (of joyful learning) is achieved when an individual or group is deriving pleasure and a sense of satisfaction from the process of learning. Characteristics of joyful learning include being highly engaged in the task or experience while having a sense of wonder and curiosity” (p. 1655). Mihaly Csıkszentmihaly's work on ‘Flow’ captures many elements that resemble deep engagement and involvement in the process of doing an activity (including learning). Flow is defined as the “psychological state in which the person feels simultaneously cognitively efficient, motivated, and happy” (Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 277). The components of flow (balance of challenges and skills, merging of action and awareness, clear goals, clear feedback, intense focus, the paradox of control, loss of self-consciousness, autotelic experience, and loss of time) seem to share commonalities with those of joyful learning (Udvari-Solner, 2012). Building on the flow as the essential core, Csıkszentmihaly & Hermanson (1999) use the context of a museum to seek answers to - ‘why does one want to learn?’. They highlight the importance of curiosity and. interest, as ‘the hook’, where the contextual stimuli attract attention and appeal to prior personal interests. This interest manifested in domain-specific appeal when coupled with opportunities for involvement (sensory, intellectual, and emotional) may result in conditions for flow if challenges meet the skill level. This may eventually lead to what the authors call ‘growth of complexity in consciousness’. Rantalla and Määttä (2012) have also attempted to create a conceptual framework of ‘joy of learning’ and researched the factors enhancing it in the classroom environment through an ethnographic observation of first and second grade students in Finnish schools. They specifically examined what factors in the learning situation strengthen the joy of learning experienced by students and how a teacher can provide students with the experience of the joy of learning. They 73 concluded that in light of data collected in their study, ‘joy of learning’ appears to be multidimensional. They presented their aggregated conclusions in the form of what they called ‘ten theses of joy of learning’ along with previous research support for their findings. The ten theses are (a) The joy of learning comes from the experiences of success, (b) Play provides a possibility to experience the joy of learning in the early school years ( c) The joy of learning enjoys an environment of freedom (d) The joy of learning does not like to hurry (e) The joy of learning springs up in situations in which a task and an actor converge (f) A student naturally strives for the joy of learning (g) The joy of learning is often a common joy, too (h) The joy of learning does not include listening to prolonged speeches (i) The joy of learning is based on a student’s abilities (j) The joy of learning is context-bound (see Rantalla & Maatta,2012). As we can notice, there are similarities between the flow framework and the framework proposed by Rantalla and Maatta (2012) and the underlying principles are those of freedom, playfulness, and harnessing the natural drives of the learner. Some other scholars have also attempted to consolidate the elements of joyful learning. Wolk (2008) and Hasan (2016) elucidate why joy is important for learning and list several elements which according to them might contribute to making learning in schools more joyful. Student choice and freedom, reformed assessment, recognition, intrinsic motivation, outdoor education, and respecting the individuality of every child are a few of the common themes in these two frameworks. The recommendations by these scholars are theoretically grounded in other research but the proposed framework itself has not been empirically validated in actual classrooms. Most conceptualizations of joyful learning focus on an individualistic experience and interpretation of joy and not on the communal and collective aspect of joy. Many scholars 74 indicate that learning and joy seem to be intimately related, both at the individual and communal level. Lewis (2000) describes how children may experience either affective joy (when they experience connection and relationship with others) or cognitive joy (when they sense accomplishment in achieving an understanding) during the learning process. Rantala, Uusiautti, and Määttä (2016) state that “joy connects learners with their learning processes and learning situations. The feeling of joy is a comprehensive and integrating emotion during which mutual, communal goals can be reached faster” (p. 23). Hence, joy can significantly improve the quality of learning both at the individual and communal level (Seligman et al., 2009). Watkins and colleagues (2018) state that “ Joy is fundamentally about ‘connection’ — the primary purpose of joy is to reinforce our important relationships with others. When we experience joy, our social bonds are strengthened.” (p.1). Dewey opines that transformative, compelling experiences require not only the rational, intentional processes of acting on the world but also the non- rational, receptive process of undergoing. It is through these strong processes of undergoing that experiences can result in “the desire to go on learning” (Dewey, 1938, p. 29). One can question if this ‘undergoing’ is inherently individual as it has been conceptualized in most of the extant research on emotional experiences? Roth and Jornet (2013) , explain how Vygotsky’s russian word perezivanie, may be interpreted as experience and also emotion or feeling. They state that “because the category of experience/perezivanie covers the entirety of individual–acting/being- affected– in-setting, affect, which is a manifestation of experience as a whole, cannot be explained by considering individuals alone” (p. 115). The research on topics like co-creativity (Schmoelz, 2018), distributed creativity (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009), and group and team flow (Sawyer, 2007; van den Hout et al., 2018) further indicates the increased focus on the social and 75 communal aspects of behaviors and processes that are typically associated with positive emotions. To sum up, joy is an important positive emotion that is unfortunately not well understood, especially as it relates to how children experience it in the context of learning. While there are related constructs and frameworks about joy and learning, there is a lack of a comprehensive framework that integrates the various constructs (like engagement, intrinsic motivation, play, creative exploration, flow, etc.) and has been empirically tested with children in the classroom. A phenomenological investigation of the lived experience of how children experience joy while playing with (math) games and, while they are unsupervised and focused on the collective, rather than individual experiences, might help us see the issue from the view of the key stakeholder here - the children themselves. Methodology Phenomenology Phenomenology is a broad term encompassing both a philosophical movement and a range of research approaches. The phenomenological movement was initiated by Husserl (1859- 1838) as a philosophical tool. Later theorists, such as Heidegger (1889-1976), moved away from a philosophical discipline that focuses on consciousness and essences of phenomena towards elaborating existential and hermeneutic (interpretive) dimensions (Finlay, 2009). The hermeneutic or the interpretive tradition draws inspiration from the idea that to understand the phenomenon we must rely on pre-reflective experiences. Phenomenological inquiries are premised on the idea that humans are not constructing the experiences, but they find themselves in the experience. When focused on such an inquiry process, we are interested in the question of ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’ is the experience (Vagle, 2018). 76 The primary purpose of phenomenology as a research methodology, according to its philosophical roots, is to study what it is like as we find ourselves being in relation with others and other things. Phenomenology is our lived experience of a phenomenon (Vagle, 2018). Lived experience is considered to be pre-reflective in the sense that it is experienced as we are in it, living through it—while not, or not yet, reflecting on it, or making sense of it, or theorizing about it (Manen, 2016). Phenomenology through the central tenet of intentionality challenged the predominant cartesian view of western egocentric predicament (i.e. the subject-object dualism). Budd (2005) credits phenomenology with “diminishing of the distance between the cogito (the thinking subject) and cogitatum (the content of thought) ...since consciousness is active, phenomenology must account for intentionality, for the realization that our perceptions are perceptions of something (p.47)”. The idea of interconnectedness and unity discussed in relation to intentionality is inextricably linked to the idea of intersubjectivity (or its variant terminology of - lifeworld). Cibangu & Hepworth (2016) assert that “intersubjectivity stands as the milieu in which humans achieve their actualization in tandem with other beings” and view lifeworld as a concept related to the communal texture in which intersubjectivity “knits people, the world, and things together” (p.150). The aim of phenomenological research is to derive insights about a phenomenon that contributes to our understanding and thoughtfulness such that we may resonate with the lived experience, distinguish its unique and singular nature from other phenomena and unearth the meanings that lie at the core of the phenomenon. Phenomenology seemed like the natural choice for investigating how children might experience joy through playful learning. Phenomenology allows us to enter the lived world of the participants and helps us understand the experience from up close. In the case of this study, it would allow us to enter the world of children as they engage in playful learning and see how and when it is joyful for children. 77 Van Manen (2016) sees ‘epoché’ and ‘reduction’ as the two key mechanisms through which a phenomenologist is supposed to gain insights about pre-reflective experiences. epoché suggests that one must be open to the experience or phenomenon that they are trying to understand. Reduction, according to Cibangu & Hepworth (2016), is the process by which the researcher brings into question their taken-for-granted presuppositions, misconceptions, and biases that preclude the fuller acquisition and actualization of knowledge about the experience. Reduction can help understand the phenomenon in its pre-reflective form. ‘Essencing’ or essentializing is another important concept related to phenomenological research. Some scholars critique phenomenology for its focus on ‘essence’ - that is, the belief that there is an essential core structure to a phenomenon, which determines the universal truths transcending time, space, social context, power, and agency. This critique has been repudiated by the likes of Vagle (2018) and Dahlberg (2006), who read the critique as a conflation of essentializing with essence. For them, the essence in phenomenology is not about arriving at deterministic understandings but capturing what makes something salient about the phenomenon and differentiates it from something else. For instance, if we take the central phenomenon that I aim to examine, one might ask: what makes joy distinct from apathy, fear, or even happiness and pleasure? Pointing at the essence of the phenomenon, for example of joy, enables people to “know” and “live” the difference of joy as distinct from other related phenomena. However, joy itself will be experienced along a “horizon of meanings each of which contributes to the ever-expanding notion” of its varied interpretations and meanings (Dahlberg, 2006). The understanding of this issue of the essence and its importance vary across the various approaches of phenomenology. Vagle (2018) argues for example that for the hermeneutic approach, the focus is more on ‘being- 78 in-the-world’ explanations and the focus is on the phenomenon as ‘it manifests in us’ rather than arriving at definitive explanations about its essence. Vagle (2018) brings up the issue of prepositions and how the use of three specific prepositions might signify three distinct phenomenological approaches. The prepositions “of” and “in”, are in Vagle’s view related to the descriptive and interpretive tradition of phenomenology. In descriptive phenomenology, one seeks to uncover the conceptual core ‘of’ a phenomenon, which is central to its existence. In contrast, hermeneutic phenomenology posits that there is no core essence. Hence one seeks to describe the subjective layers and the common interrelationships that characterize the phenomenon (Vagle, 2018). Influenced by Husserlian and Heideggerian ideology, the “of -ness” (directed towards something) and “in-ness” (of intended meanings) respectively, these paradigms dictate a different conceptualization between the intentionality among the subject-object and consequently on the examining lens /approach. Vagle proposes the preposition “through” as signifying an alternative approach which attempts to “re- imagine the matter outside the descriptive-interpretive dualism” (p. 40). In Vagle’s post- intentional phenomenology “through-ness” transfers the focus on being, to a focus on continuously becoming and the intended meanings are hence generative. The intentionalities (plural) of different shapes, sizes, and contours are taken to be “multiple, partial, fleeting meanings that circulate, generate, undo, and remake themselves” (p. 41) and there is hence no linear link between the subjects and objects. It is with the ‘through’ perspective of understanding joy that I approach this study. Hence, I do not bound myself with either the descriptive or the interpretive tradition. This allows me the intellectual freedom to use a variety of methods in order to identify joy through playful learning in its multiple, fleeting, and partial forms at the Montessori school context. 79 Phenomenological Data Explication Using videos directly and not transcribing the data. One of the usual first steps with qualitative inquiry is transcription of data. This is especially true for phenomenological studies, where interviews are one of the most popular data sources. Scholars also recommended transcribing the data manually (rather than using a software) and by oneself (as opposed to getting the transcription done through someone). This allows for a deeper and more personal engagement with the data, which is required for a phenomenological study. While I appreciate the rationale behind deeper engagement with the data, I decided to not get the data transcribed. Instead, I relied on using videos and audio recordings directly. My decision to use videos (and not transcribing them\) enabled me to attend to several aspects of the data including the gestures, tone, body language, intonation, pauses, general mood and hence ‘relive’ the experience of the children. The attention on multimodality helped me focus on other aspects and modes (Hutchins & Nomura, 2011) of how children experienced and expressed joy. Given the goals of the study to capture the phenomenological experience of joy, I found using videos more appropriate, engaging, and informative as I engaged with the data. As I documented and consolidated my findings, I selectively transcribed the data. Wherever possible, I tried using images along with text to allow readers to engage with the data. Bracketing and phenomenological reduction. Aware that I cannot completely detach (but only consciously distance) myself from my presuppositions, I relied on two core elements to bracket (suspend) my preconceptions to fully “enter into the individual’s lifeworld and use the self as an experiencing interpreter” (Miller & Crabtree,1992, p.24). 80 Firstly, I watched each video multiple times, which gave me the opportunity to become familiar with the children’s experiences of playing with the games and develop, what Hycner calls a holistic sense, or Giorgi’s (1975) ‘gestalt’. Even before I started examining the videos with the purpose of phenomenological explication, I ended up watching the videos multiple times. As part of the initial data cleaning and storage process, I used an editing software to match the audio and videos together. While doing this I watched the videos for the first time (usually on the day of data collection itself). I also used the video data (along with data from a school in India) for making a short documentary (You Matter - Every Child Matters) on the issue of social- emotional wellbeing across two different contexts. The documentary moviemaking enabled me to engage with the data multiple times. Additionally, during the qualitative coding for another study, I analyzed the children’s play experiences using an observation protocol. For that study, I used MAXQDA and rewatched the entire data several times as I coded the data. Hence, I had several opportunities to watch and rewatch the videos and check my own preconceptions every time. This iterative process spread over about one and a half years gave me the opportunity to engage with the data, question my reactions, and suspend my ideas so that I could see the data from the children’s viewpoint. Secondly, I still consider myself as an outsider with respect to my understanding of the US schooling system in general and Montessori classrooms in particular. Additionally, all the games, except for dominoes (which was not selected by the students), were new for me as well. Also, as discussed earlier, to not get influenced by existing theorizing, I consciously avoided going into the details of phenomenological experiences of joy beyond the general understanding of the topic (which I gathered through the literature review). It is another matter, that there is limited work centered on the joyful experiences of children, specifically in early primary years, 81 as I discovered during the later stage of my work for this study. The combined unfamiliarity (of US classrooms, the games that I used, and the theoretical and empirical findings related to joy) turned out to be helpful and made it easy to suspend my ‘taken for granted’ assumptions and interpretations or theoretical concepts to enter the participants’ /children’s experience. The unfamiliarity provided me a rare opportunity to look at children’s interaction with an emotive distance that perhaps wouldn't have been possible if this was a classroom in India, my home country where I have spent significant time as a child and an educator. Delineating units of meaning. This was one of the most time-consuming and rigorous phases in the explication process. During the beginning of this phase, I watched the videos and assigned an initial code to what I saw as relevant to the research question- “How do children experience ‘joy through learning’ while playing with (math) toys?”. I used MAXQDA as the qualitative analysis software and used it to assign initial codes. A code refers to ‘the most basic segment, or element, of the raw data or information that can be assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon’ (Boyatzis, 1998: 63). I used inductive coding, and this ensured that I was not fitting the data into pre- existing theoretical framework or letting my own conceptions inadvertently influence the explication process. At this stage, the initial codes were either the most obvious word/phrase that I could map to the episode that I was examining (for e.g., freedom; challenge etc.) or they were a simplified phrase from the episode itself (e.g., “don’t let them bring you down”; “that is fun hard” etc.). As I tried to delineate the codes clearly with explicit boundaries, ensuring the least overlap, minimizing interchangeable meanings, and avoiding redundancies (Nowell et. al., 2017), the list of initial codes increased with every video. It was becoming impossible for me to keep track of all the codes that I had created. While I was hoping to arrive at themes out of all the 82 initial codes at the very end, I could see some codes very closely related to each other. For making the coding process manageable, I created what I saw as broad categories under which the codes fit together. For e.g., one broad category was called ‘Relaxed’ and comprised codes like- singing, lying down, laughing, etc. These categories were a precursor and hence distinct from themes (discussed later). While defining these categories and interpreting them, I had not imposed the lens of relevance to the research question yet. They were simply a collection of all the distinct data sets as I observed the data. Clustering of units of meaning to form themes. A ‘theme’ in qualitative coding according to DeSantis and Ugarriza refers to “an abstract entity that brings meaning and identity to a recurrent experience and its variant manifestations. As such, a theme captures and unifies the nature or basis of the experience into a meaningful whole” (p. 362). It was humbling for me how Coaozzi (as cited in Hycner,1999, pp. 150-151) states that “Particularly in this step is the phenomenological researcher engaged in something which cannot be precisely delineated, for here he is involved in that ineffable thing known as creative insight”. As I (re) engaged with the data and examined the categories and codes decided in the previous stem, I was now trying to see the connection between the findings and the research question. This meant that I was prioritizing the findings (if not excluding) categories and codes that did not pertain to or were only indirectly connected to the research question. For instance, some codes such as the children’s family lives, their favorite things etc. that were not connected to play experiences with games and were hence ignored. On the other hand, some codes /categories like outdoor play, video games, recess, students loving arts and music etc. were connected but not distinctly related to the play experience specifically to games. Such codes and categories were kept in a separate theme and were used only as supportive evidence. 83 Like the process for deciding the codes, as I decided the themes, I focused on what the data was telling me rather than letting any theoretical framework influence the process. I kept in mind Patton’s (1990) dual criteria for ensuring that the themes were internally homogenous (data within a theme must be coherent together in a meaningful way) and externally heterogeneous (there must be identifiable distinctions between themes). As I tried to cluster, collapse, refine, rename, discard, and separate my initial set of codes (and the categories), I used the MAXQDA software to move around the categories, codes, and subcodes. Use of visual representation and diagrams is often recommended to aid the process of theme finalization. Like many other coding software, MAXQDA has a suite of visual tools, including MAXmap which among other things allows a researcher to visually map the connections across various data sources and themes (codes). However, I preferred using post-its and writing on a physical sheet of paper to decide the main themes. I found writing things on a sheet of paper and using different colored pens to make connections and noting down observations easier and more involved than using MAXQDA. Summarizing each data source, validating, and modifying. Hycner (1999) recommends conducting a validity check by turning to the informants to determine if the findings adequately ‘capture the essence’ of the lived experience. Unfortunately, with the school closed due to the COVID 19 pandemic, I did not have this option. Instead, at this stage, I used the findings emerging across my data sources to do an informal validation exercise. Firstly, I compared the presence of themes emanating across all the seven different games. Secondly, I compared the emergent findings across the various data sources particularly - the videos of children playing the games, their reflections using the TV and Radio, and the videos of the interviews. For both cases, I was essentially trying to see if the emergent themes that I have 84 identified are particular to any specific game/ data source. If that was the case, it would have meant that I am incorrectly attributing the findings to the overall play experience when it was perhaps only relevant to one source - a particular game, a specific child, or one mode of data collection. I was glad to note that the findings were uniformly spread across the data sources. This gave me the confidence that the themes were representative of what most of the children experienced for most of the game and it was being expressed across the data gathering modes. Figure 13 below shows the coding scheme at this stage, when the first five themes were tentatively finalized (but the categories and codes were still being rearranged and moved around). It might also be noted how the last theme of ‘Flow’ has only one code below it. I elaborate on the quandaries related to deciding any particular theme in the findings section. Figure 13: The emerging themes along with the codes and sub-codes during the inductive coding process using MAXQDA Finalizing and naming the themes. As I examined and compared the emerging findings across various data gathering modes (play recording; interviews; spontaneous reaction on TV etc.) and various games, I highlighted the themes that were common and strongly reflected across these sources. Parallelly, I was also trying to decide on the name of the themes. It was a strange coincidence that four of 85 the initial themes (Freedom, Fun, Friendship, and Fantasy) that emerged, all began with the letter ‘F’. For the fifth theme, I initially named it ‘engagement’. However, there were other codes/categories (including interest, curiosity, student’s reflection about how playing with games is learning, etc.) that went beyond just engagement. As discussed later, in the findings section, a substitute teacher’s comment about students’ fascination helped me decide on the name for the fifth theme. Flow was the last theme to be decided and I moved some categories/codes to finalize this theme. The reasons for the same are discussed in the findings section. Another aspect that was important in the analysis phase was my decision to not decide on an operational definition for any of the themes. Most of the theme names were self-explanatory yet also allowed broader interpretations. I decided to not attempt a bounded definition of either of the themes. Findings Freedom Joy through playful learning rests on the important pillar of freedom. Freedom creates the conditions for joy to emerge. As the children approach primary grades, the need for having and exercising freedom becomes even more important. The analysis indicated that joy through playful learning needs the freedom of choice; freedom to take risks; freedom to defy the rules and do what is prohibited; and the freedom of bodily movement. Freedom to make choices was the easiest to observe and emerged quite early during the data explication process. Across the play episodes, there were numerous instances of children wanting to (and making) decisions about - who to play with, how long to play, how to vary the difficulty level, and how to modify rules. The choice about who to play with seemed to be very important for the children and their preference seemed to be influenced by existing relationships, 86 and friendships. As Jack and Duke pretended to interview each other on the TV station, they summarized the freedom of choice in the following way: Jack (interviewing Duke on the TV): So what did you like about playing the game? Duke: What I like is that I am not playing just to like play it...because I am told to play. I am playing it because it's fun, it's really funny to play it with teams and then not teams. (Student impromptu interaction on the TV) While not the focus of my analysis, gendered preferences were also observed in most instances where children paired up with students of the same gender. For example, while starting a new round of ‘Clumsy Thief’, Andy announced that “ let’s play teams now”. Missi immediately says, “ya boys versus girls” - and everyone agrees as they move closer to their team member to discuss their strategy. Similarly, as the children paired up for the newsletter writing and presentation exercise, the group composition was highly gendered. The freedom to choose partners was significant as it seemed to influence the quality of the interactions and experiences. As detailed later under the themes of ‘friendship’ and ‘flow’, the freedom to choose friends seemed to influence the joy through playful learning significantly. Freedom to make mistakes (and cheat!) was another key observation. Making mistakes was regarded negatively by children. This issue came up repeatedly as I asked about the difference between school math and games that they played with. Also, most children considered asking for help (using hints etc.) as something inherently bad and as something usually not encouraged within formal schooling structures. When Sunny and Alyssa realized that two of their cubes were incorrectly placed as they solved the third puzzle in Chroma Cubes, Sunny says, “No one will ever know” to which Alyssa responds “really?” before stating “well, we know.” Sunny says “ya we know… but that is only us.” They discuss the same issue of ‘others won’t know’ repeatedly as they get other puzzles wrong. The episode seems to suggest how the two 87 students thought of making mistakes as something to be avoided and to be hidden from others. As they continued playing and getting successive problems incorrect, Alyssa started peeping (very briefly) at the back of the card which contained the answer. Both Sunny and Alyssa repeatedly peeped multiple times to get clues (though not allowing them to see the complete answer). However, they kept giggling as they said, they “accidentally” saw some part of the answer. Referring to the card for clues/hints was not an acceptable norm but seeking help by looking at the answer key “accidentally” was agreeable to both. Missi’s comment about the difference between math learning in school and through games hints at how seeking help or making mistakes was not considered a good thing: The learning that happens at school does not have that much fun into it, because you have to really know the answers and then you get it wrong….then you have to restart all over again but when you have the games, it's really fun because you get to learn and you get to have fun at the same time and it helps you learn better than having to struggle with your math work. (Student impromptu interaction on the TV) As I watched the videos of the children engaged in play, a trend emerged quite prominently and consistently. The children craved for and valued the freedom to bodily movements. As the children spent some time playing the game and were more engaged and engrossed, they wanted to spread their body and if possible, lie down on the floor. Figure 14 below presents screenshots from three different games showing how the players were sitting at the start of the games (left panel) and how they preferred lying down after the game progressed a bit (getting more challenging and engaging). Initially, I was unsure if the preference to lie down was related to their engagement, or because of physical discomfort due to their crouched sitting position. Hence, I examined the videos more carefully. I observed that as the game got more challenging, competitive, engaging, the students preferred lying down. Moreover, I noticed that even the children who were lying on the floor in the middle of a game, usually sat again at the 88 start of a new round of the same game. Thus, the pattern of students preferring to lie down seemed related to their spending some time during each round of the game and as the game progressed. This proclivity to lie down may be indicative of ‘relaxed and calm bodily state coupled with alert attention. Figure 14: The screenshots from three different games show the players were sitting at the start of the games (left panel) and how they preferred lying down as the game progressed This preference for children to have freedom over how they move their body was reiterated several times during the interviews. Stefi: Something that I don’t really like is that we have to raise our hands, like for throwing away our lunch or something. I would like……I just want to stand up without being yelled at… 89 Frederick: (interjects and says) Freedom…. Stefi: Like sitting down… Frederick (interjects and repeats): Freedom… Interviewer: Freedom to do what? Stefi: Freedom to move Fredrick (laughing): Freedom to stand up Stefi: Freedom to throw away stuff (laughing)...Like we have to raise our hands (Student Interview) Similar sentiments but in a more serious undertone were expressed by Saul and Mohammad: Saul: I feel like we are in prison. Interviewer-Why do you say that? Saul: I say we are in prison because you got to sit in certain spots. It's like ‘they’ put us in a cell and we can’t even choose our cell. (pauses for few seconds)...Well I think all the cells is the same! Mohammad: That means all the seats are the same. (Student Interview) Unsupervised play allowed the children the freedom to defy (adult directed) rules and do what is prohibited. As the students played the games, there were several instances where they swore, used language, or had conversations around topics that are not “expected” from children. Watching these episodes, I remembered my own childhood and the joy of using swear words and ‘adult talks’ and the strange power high that it gives you. I could also not help but remember how as an educator, I demanded sobriety in language from my students, even when I could use that same improper language and words with other adults. I did not get the sense that the children used the words deliberately - to gain attention. The usage of such words, in fact, seemed very natural. While at times they realized that they had said something inappropriate and it might have been captured on the camera on other occasions, they were so engrossed in the play that they did not even realize that. 90 Figure 15: Mohammad (top right) and Duke (top left), chuckling at an “inappropriate” joke by Brady This theme to defy the rules was repeated in the students' response of what they like and don’t like in their schools and if they were to design a school of their own- what will be different. Response like: “we should be allowed to wear hoodies”; “we can play on the computers for as long as we want, as long as we are not doing inappropriate things!”; “We can talk loudly and yell” etc. all hinted at the desire to self-direct their behavior and have more control over their conduct. While I am unsure of what disciplining techniques were practiced in the school, the students were aware of the disciplining techniques (and their hierarchy and severity). While talking about their dream school Mohammad and Tory said: Tory: We would have desks and chair and I would put all the people that talk a lot together. I will put one person in the back, one in the front, and one in the middle. So there will be five rows of desks and chair and when they need help they will come to my table. Mohammad (says assertively): My table! Tory: And if they talk…one who talks the most, we take their table and put it to the wall. Mohammad (chuckles): no we put it in the corner. 91 (Mohammad stands and faces the wall in one corner) Tory: If they don’t work still… Mohammad - Suspended! Both laugh… Tory: No, we make them go to a different class. Mohammad- and if they get in trouble again, go to the office and if they get in trouble, suspended for one day. (Student interviews) Two other sub-elements that were highlighted repeatedly in the student responses, but do not relate to play with games, relate to the freedom to be in the outdoors; and the freedom to unsupervised physical activities that involve risk. Recess and the newly discovered unsupervised playtime (introduced specifically for this study) seemed to be children’s favorite times in the school. When asked - why they loved it, the students mentioned that they could do what they want including being with friends, being outdoors (and not seated inside), being unsupervised, and engaging in risky play. Me: Both of you said that being outdoors is the most fun part…why is playing outdoors the most fun part? Student 1- Because we get to play with our friends, and talk… and yell Student 2- we get to run around instead and we get to talk so loud… Student 1- we can yell… Student 2 - we can play basketball. (Student interviews) The need and desire for freedom during the playful learning was the easiest to observe and was also the most frequent in its occurrence. It seemed to form the necessary condition for children to experience joy. Friendships Friendships seem to transform joy through learning from a solitary experience into a shared, magnified, and enhanced experience. Duke: So what do you like about playing the game and learning? 92 Shawn: Well learning is always fun and my favorite part is that you don’t leave your friends out of it. You get to hang out with your friends, just like my buddy Duke, right here (taps at Duke’s shoulder). ( Student impromptu interaction at the TV) When I questioned the children about what they like most about the school, “I like being with my friends” was the most repeated answer. The opportunity to be with friends being a source of joy was repeated across multiple occasions. One example of this is the statement by Brady, made during the student interview, as he talks about about why he likes prodigy3 (an adaptive Math learning digital platform) more than school math: “I mean you can have friends (around); you can chat with friends, You can battle other people. Like you can battle your friends just for fun but the only way you get to battle is to get the math right”. (Student interviews) The importance of friendships was reiterated in all three newsletters (and the presentations) that the children made. Words like ‘BFF’ were common across the newsletter. Missi says: “What brings me joy is hanging out with my friends and family. I really like hanging out with my BFF, Anita.” (Newsletter presentation) Friendship also meant understanding the need for providing support and helping friends. One example of this is what Abdul said: “I know how to throw a football; I am just trying to teach other people …like John doesn't know how to run that fast and catch the ball…I am trying to teach him”. Even while playing the dice game competitively, when Duke noticed that Mohammad was sad because his counter was behind the rest, Duke pointed it out- “You are really sad”. Immediately, Kairan put his hand on his shoulders and told him “Don’t give up!” 3 https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/ 93 “Ya, don’t give up echoed, Mandy” bringing a smile on Mohammad’s otherwise tense and morose face. (Figure 16-a and 16-b) Figure 16: Mohammad (second from right) feeling sad (a) as his counter is behind everyone and Mandy comforting him (b) (a) (b) Winning a game inevitably led to some expression of joy but losing the game itself did not deny the satisfying experience of the game. Collaboration with friends during play contributed to enhancing joy through play. John summarized this as below- “Prime climb is fun because it's not like you are doing just one thing and one thing only. You just get to sit there and be like 'this is this’...Oh So boring! And then when you do it with a team, like if you have your best friend and if you guys are like using the cards… you guys can use the cards together like if you get roll again, me and Abdul did. Like he got roll again and I got roll again, he gave me both his roll again and we were also giving each other stuff so we end up losing but it was still really fun cause it's an easy learning game.” “I would tell other people to play the game because it is really fun. If anyone ever gets the game, I advise them to play it with friends or family and all that stuff …and you would want to do team because team is the best”. (TV interaction) Relatedly, it was also common to see how, if someone was struck with a difficult challenge / problem, the problem was owned by everyone, and it was “solved jointly” irrespective of who’s turn it was. It was surprising to note how often the children helped their opponents with whom they were competing. This is not to suggest that the children did not like 94 competing. On the contrary, they loved it! Children wanted to win and enjoyed it. They were quite expressive of their joy after winning (discussed in the fascination theme). They also seemed to enjoy others’ misfortune (unfavorable cards/ dice throw or stealing from them). However, at the same time competing and ‘schadenfreude’ seemed subservient to the overall goal of enjoying the game and continuing the group’s engagement. There were several instances where despite competing with the other students, the children proactively helped each other. This was especially true as the game got complex and the decision around the game move required more complex decision making. It appeared that the challenge of making sense of the problem and reaching the best solution, which otherwise was to be solved by the individual student, was lifted to the collective level. Rather than winning or losing, it became more important to solve the problem. The biggest motivation was not to win but to continue to play. For example, in the instance described in figure 16, as the children go on playing the game, noticing that Mohammad is sad, Duke helped him choose the numbers. Consequently, Mohammad was able to move his counter up and catch up with his friends (he finished second at the end of the game). It was rather surprising to see that no one in the group opposes this act of help and everyone was happy to see a competitor move up. The goal of winning was supplanted by the goal of helping the peers and enjoying the play together. This was repeated across games and across groups. The issue of loneliness, busy schedules of parents and inability to play with the children during the daytime, and concerns around safety surfaced during the conversations with the children. Related to all these aspects was the issue of children not being able to spend time with friends especially without adult supervision. “I am like kinda kid that doesn't really enjoy….Well, I do enjoy stuff …it's just , I rather like stay inside…play games….because right now no one I know lives by me, so I just stay inside and play by myself ….and when my friend used to live down by me, we always used to ride and stuff. But now I just stay inside and sometimes like I just go 95 outside myself and just walk around and not really do much. Sometimes I play in my bedroom, like I imagine things” (student interviews) Given that the opportunities for children to play with other children were limited, the time that they spent with their friends in school seemed even more important. While playing video games was mentioned by almost all students as one of their favorite activities, when asked whether they would prefer to play video games or play out with their friends- all but one said that they would play outside with friends. In Abdul’s words, when compared to playing with friends, “video games do not matter as such”. The only student who said that they would prefer playing video games added the caveat “I will play the games because technically, I would like to play this game which is online, and we could play with your friends. So technically we could all still play together even if we were at home.” Fun Fun is the sustainer, most vivid expression, and the nourisher of joy. What might otherwise be a nebulous internal feeling is nourished by the expression of having fun. The shared laughter, humor, and jokes (even directed at self), silly acts, the singing/humming, and occasional physical moves (clap, dance, tap on their body, rolling-over on the floor), see Figure 17, seem to serve as a live dashboard that relay the joy index through these obvious markers. 96 Figure 17: Some overt expression of children having fun playing the games (a) Tapping (b) Blowing a raspberry (c) Sharing a group laugh (d) Laughing and clapping While there might be a more intense, subtle, and less flashy exhibition of joy (as alluded to in the other themes, particularly flow and fascination), fun seems like the unshackled and unrestrained expression of it. Duke- Wait, (pauses during his turn and gains the attention of the other three players) did you notice that everyone is on the floor playing games…. Mohammad - No Everyone is on the floor….no ones’ working….literally nobody (the three group members look around). Everybody is playing games. That’s dope! (Everyone smiles and suggests agreement) (During game play) 97 “This is fun!”, “This game is fun!”, “ It was pretty fun. I am not going to lie!” There were several such statements that the students made, while they were playing the game and as they shared their impromptu reactions on the TV/radio station. Even when not articulated explicitly, the fun aspect of the game was evident in all the shared laughter, singing/humming, and jokes/ humor that was shared among the children as they played. The mathematical aspects of the game were also an integral aspect of the children’s fun experience. For example, the constraints imposed by the cards and the element of luck in Prime Climb or Clumsy Thief were integrally woven into the game narrative. Even for Picasso Tiles, the most open game/toy used for this study, the children seem to invent their own temporary play narrative(like the construction of the White House/ making the tallest tower). These narratives were again mathematical because of the underlying construction-driven nature and the constraint imposed by the shapes provided. Children seem to enjoy the games because of these elements (including the constraints) and their conversations were centered around the game narrative. The children were very clear of the fun aspect as well as the mathematical component of the games. “When I am doing like normal (school) math, it's not really a lot of fun, but when I am playing the games, it's a lot of fun because I am not doing it by myself and I am playing with a bunch of other people….Like PrimeClimb was a good math game that I liked to do…It was not because it was just a game, its because it actually is fun math. It's funny because the cards are funny and when you play it on somebody it makes…it gives everybody a laugh pretty much! (student reaction on the TV) 98 Fantasy Joyful Learning through play seems to take flight on the wings of Fantasy. Across the varied expressions of joyful learning, the children's imagination was a consistent and regular occurrence. During the play sessions, the children often used their fantasy to imagine and collectively create events, situations, objects, and personalities that were not present. There were many occasions where the game artifacts were used to spur their imagination. While playing Block Us, when the girls started playing with their tokens and singing “We got the money money money,” Felix lifted one of his green pieces and declared “this is the real money, it's green” (18- a). One of the girls responded by pointing at the yellow pieces and said, “we got the gold coins”. Brady retorted “we have the emeralds” (18-b), as he picked the green pieces. What was just money a while back was now precious emeralds. Missi responded by pointing to the red pieces and stating, “we have the rubies” (18-c). Felix jumped in declaring “we also have the sapphires” (18-d) as he showed the blue pieces. Before they could settle the debate over who was richer, they realized that the board was translucent and viewing it from below (to see the colored patterns) captured everyone’s attention (18-e). 99 Figure 18: We have the riches-the gold, rubies, emeralds, and sapphires. But look what’s down below- it’s beautiful! (a) This is real money- it is green (b) we have the emeralds (c) But we have rubies (d) We also have the sapphires (e)It looks so beautiful if you tilt it and view it from the other side! 100 At other times the game material was fitted into the ongoing pretend play narrative. While playing Labyrinth, as the children talked about conquering different forts, treasures, etc. Tory got the princess card. He exclaimed as he teased Shawn -“I got the ring. I get to marry her, you only got the princess (card) but I got the ring ...wait you are the princess you are female.” The other focus of fantasizing seemed not directly related to the game. This evidenced less during the play episodes as the children were mostly involved in the gameplay. However, this was in full display when the game narrative of the TV. Advertisements, news, interviews, dance sequences, etc. were all performed in front of the TV. Fascination During one of the sessions, the home teacher was absent and there was a substitute teacher in the classroom. She had substituted in the classroom on earlier occasions. As she saw the children playing with the games she exclaimed “Wow! I have never seen them so fascinated ever. “This statement has stuck with me since. As I rewatched the videos of children excited to play, deeply engrossed and engaged with the toys, asking new questions, and trying to answer them, competing, and collaborating with each other, reveling in the joy of winning, and eager to play again especially if they had lost, having the Aha! / Illumination moments where some ideas just clicked for them etc., I found the word fascination to best capture the students’ experience. The fascination of the children sustained not only the ‘in the moment’ of gameplay but also after the play experience with the games. They were fascinated with the idea that they could learn and have fun at the same time. The children had a very strong idea that the games were learning games and even the mathematical nature of these toys. This idea was communicated strongly during the impromptu TV interaction and in the interviews. While they had played board games with friends and family earlier, the experience of playing it in the classroom and 101 seeing the clear connection to learning excited them for these games. The play experience stood for a few novel elements: being able to play in the classroom, exercise agency, and autonomy, have freedom beyond the usual norm, be with friends during this communal learning experience and have a sense of fun. All these elements seemed to have come together as children experienced fascination for the experience. “I like playing..(pauses)…Learning sometimes sucks. Learning a lot of times sucks. School sucks! I wish the last two words on this (pointing at the words Play and Learning, written on the cardboard TV cutout) were the same thing…(hums for a few seconds)...... I wish joy and playing was part of learning …like this…(picks up the packaging box) Clumsy Thief….. and all the other games.” (Impromptu student reflection on the TV) As alluded to under the friendship theme, at times, the source of the fascination was the ‘schadenfreude’ that came at someone else’s loss such as stealing the cards while playing ‘clumsy thief’ or ‘blocking someone in ‘BlockUs’. However, it was interesting to note how almost everyone, including the child who was at the losing end, was usually OK about this and even shared the fascination/fun with others. The photographs in figures 19 and 20 below capture one such incident perfectly. 102 Figure 19: The game play with ‘Clumsy Thief’ where the stealing never stopped! And neither did the enjoyment (a) Duke steals Christine’s pile (b) Christine is sad taps her forehead to indicate her disappointment (c) Christine plays a card that (d) Brady stands on his knees to look at wins over her pile back (which now Christine’s pile also includes Duke’s pile) (e) Brady walks up to Christine and steals (f) Katrina, finds its hilarious that the same the pile Pile was stolen and re-stolen 103 Figure 19 (Cont’d) (g) Everyone, including Christine (who lost her pile after almost winning it back), has a hearty laugh (with Carissa and Brady almost rolling on the carpet) as they all enjoy what just happened in the game. At other occasions, the joy through play was animated from being able to jointly set up a challenge and achieve it, as in the case of creating challenging structures with “Picasso Tiles”. The element of luck also seemed to play a role in how much the children enjoyed the experience. Whether it was a good roll of the dice, or a good hand of cards, whoever was favored by lady luck (and this obviously shifted multiple times during the game), seemed to thoroughly enjoy it. The balance of luck and skill also meant that the stigma of lagging could be attributed to chance. 104 Figure 20: Stefi and Nadia sharing their draw (a) and bursting into laughter (b) as they realized they have three jail cards (the most powerful cards) while playing Clumsy Thief (a) (b) The play experience inspired a lot of curious behavior, as the children posed questions, proposed creative ideas, and tried different solution strategies. Both the act of posing questions and arriving at a solution seemed to contribute to the joy through learning. There were several instances, where the questions posed took the form of ideas/ challenges, The contrast in the learning experience with the games versus with schoolwork (math) also alluded to how and why the children found the games to be fascinating: Mohammad-We should get money to work. That will be the best thing in my whole life… Tory- I want to be rich.” Mohammad- I also want to be rich Interviewer- But I was not giving you any money for the games that you were playing.. Mohammad- I don’t need money. You are making us have fun. That's all I want! Tory- Ya thats what I really want. Interviewer- So why should a school pay you money? Mohammad- because we are working. Tory: Because sometimes it's not fun at all. (Student Interviews) When I heard many children talk about school being hard, such as this quote by Mohammad “school is not fun because you work so hard. …. and when you finish your work, you are tired and bored”, I wondered if the children think of school as hard because it’s challenging. However, the responses of the children made it amply clear that they liked 105 challenging stuff. Tory: If it’s hard and fun, I will keep doing it but if it is hard and boring, I will probably give up. Me: So math is hard and boring? Tory: No, Math is easy…but sometimes it's hard, it's not fun; if we are having fun…if we are playing, then it’s fun! (Reaction on the TV) The children loved challenging themselves with what they found fun. They just didn’t see the schoolwork as engaging! Flow The concept of ‘flow’ or optimal experiences when one is “in the zone” is one of the most prominent topics that sprang up as I searched about joy and learning. Trying to be true to the phenomenological maxim of not letting my preconceived ideas and knowledge interfere with my explication process, I was shying away from the construct of Flow. Until I just could not! This was the last theme that I uncovered. During the analysis phase, while I was able to capture some elements that were related to flow (such as interest, elation etc.) in other themes, I realized that some observations could not be captured by any other term but flow. This theme initially consisted of codes like - love for challenge; intense concentration, unwavering attention- all characteristics of flow. Once I contemplated how best to capture the codes, I referred to the theoretical frameworks related to flow, to decide if it was to be included as a separate theme. Unlike other themes, where almost all codes were inductively named, I examined and coded the data with the characteristics/conditions of Flow to finally decide that flow deserves a distinct mention. 106 Given my focus on the communal level, I used Group flow (Sawyer, 2007) as the theoretical framework. There are many conditions of group flow (and individual flow) that are bestowed in play experiences with games - like (a) specific goals in mind and (b) potential for failure, (c ) familiarity with foundational principles and others in the group (friends). The collaborative modification introduced in the game (where the pairs played together) and the natural inclination for children to continue the play experience (over and above the intention of winning) seemed to contribute to other elements of group flow: an autonomous self-modulating equilibrium where there was close listening, equal participation, blending egos, and general movement forward. There were several instances, especially as children shared their impromptu reaction on the TV where they used the term “we” and “us” to describe their play experience. I used these statements as hints to refer to the group and not solely individual experiences. The compatibility of challenge and competence is a well-known condition for the experience of flow, and this was certainly observed for the episodes that surfaced as indicative of flow. The comment by John below explains how children generally wanted to challenge themselves with what they saw as fun stuff: Mostly, when it's games and stuff like that, I love to challenge myself. When I am playing a game, I don’t want to be like ohhh 1+2 is three…like if it is like tiles (picasso tiles), I am not going to be like make a square and be like…done…super hard (with a heavy intonation suggest sarcasm). I like to challenge myself with fun stuff because challenging yourself with fun stuff makes things more fun but in school challenging work is just too hard and I don't really like hard stuff. I like easy peasy fun stuff, pretty much! (student interview) It must be added that the experience of flow was certainly not true for all the games and/or groups or for the entirety of the play experience. Few episodes stood out and the groups were just in that state of that ideal zone. The game experience of the three friends with the Picasso Tiles, explained in the earlier chapter (figure 5,6, and 7) is one such example. Especially 107 when the three friends were trying to solve the tessellation problem, it was almost magical how they were speaking even without speaking, coordinating even without anyone explicitly laying down the norms, and just collectively and individually being completely immersed in the play. Their intense concentration and involvement were an archetype of a group ‘just being in flow’. Another observation relevant to the occurrence of flow was the camaraderie and closeness of the group. For most of the episodes where flow related codes were mapped, it was observed that the group members were particularly collegial and appeared to be good friends. In contrast, while playing the same game, the difference between two different groups was usually very stark. Predictably, where the children were not at the same skill level, the play experience was slow, choppy, and not energizing. Even if the group members were almost at the same skill level, the game play was far more fast paced, energetic (with multiple laughs and joyful moments shared among the children) when they appeared to be close friends. It is worth reiterating that the children were given the choice to choose their playing partners. While children preferred playing with friends, there were times that they chose to play with others either because they wanted to try out new games or because their friends were already playing other games. The issue of how the relationship between the children influences the possibility of flow experiences has not been adequately captured in existing research and may be an interesting aspect needing further examination. As I reflected on this last theme, I could see why Csikszentmihalyi (1975) has stated that “games are obvious flow activities, and play is the flow experience par excellence” (p.37). Discussion The findings discussed above relate to the phenomenological exploration of childrens’ experience of joyful learning through unsupervised play with (math) toys. The study was specific 108 to a public Montessori School in the mid-western region of the United States of America. In the endeavor to describe children’s lived experience of joyful learning, the study focused on a more holistic and expanded notion of learning than is usually common in academic settings. The study was looking at a broader conceptualization of math learning that went beyond the outcomes of content mastery (or not). As opposed to mastery of content specific standards as outcomes, the study uses the focus on productive behaviors, skills, and disposition that focus on the process of learning. It was focused on the process of mathematical thinking and higher order skills like problem solving, creativity, communication, and engagement with the learning, etc. (See Sharma & Parks, forthcoming). The focus on expanded notion of learning and viewing it in conjunction with play also helped to redirect attention to the process of doing math rather than only the product or the procedural solution steps. The findings of this study must be interpreted within this expanded and holistic understanding of learning/play and within the constraints of this study. Firstly, unlike the blanket generalizability offered by quantitative studies, this study focuses on the applicability of the findings to specific contexts and participants. Secondly, the novelty of the game material might have also impacted the findings especially as it relates to children’s fascination for the game play. Thirdly, I did not examine the data for individual student’s experiences. My focus was on the group and hence the analysis of the data did not consider aspects like gender, socio-economic status etc. Lastly, as discussed earlier, the COVID crisis impeded the original design and respondent validation could not be done. The children could not be involved during the preliminary analysis of the findings (especially the interviews and newsletter activity which were held at the very end of the data collection phase). Neither could the children comment on the final themes and concepts. The triangulation across the various data sources and using the direct 109 quotes and rich and thick descriptions helped mitigate this issue somewhat but the lack of respondent validation remains a limitation. Given these limitations, what can the children’s lived experience of joyful learning through unsupervised play tell us? The inductive thematic phenomenological data explication process surfaced 6 themes - Freedom, Friendships, Fantasy, Fun, Fascination and Flow. This ‘6F’ model offered by the study offers a window into the lived experience of children's joyful play/ learning experiences. By centering joy during the very process of learning, the study challenges the paradigmatic western educational paradigm, dominating the US classrooms, and that is coercive, impersonal, positivistic, and eurocentric (Oviawe, 2016). By centering joy and play as the core pillars of learning, and interpreting learning beyond the limited notion of content standards, the current study encourages us to reimagine learning from the child's perspective, and celebrate it for what it is - comprehensive, holistic, collective, more colorful than captured through standardized testing. Engaging with math games and toys can be a joyful experience and can contribute to the understanding of key mathematical ideas and support children’s mathematical habits of mind (Reed & Young, 2019). The focus of the study on upper-primary children helps us to focus on the critical developmental level when the students' need for autonomy, self-directedness, and community is said to increase. However, contrary to the educational implications of these developmental needs, the demands of formal education run contrary, including reduced play opportunities and more strict disciplining expectations. Joy needs to be at the core of how we think and plan for learning. Schools present a unique opportunity where children get to socialize with friends, learning collectively with and from others. As children grow into young adolescents where their developmental needs demand increased autonomy, self-direction, peer support, and trust-based stronger relationships with adults, children need more and not less play. The lens of 110 examining play and learning through the 6F framework can empower educators, policymakers, and parents alike to understand the nebulous experience of joy through learning. More specifically, the six F’s described above provide a means for (a) observing, (b) understanding, and (c) enabling joy through playful learning. Observing The 6F framework provides a lens through which one may observe the otherwise abstract and nebulous concept of Joy. As discussed, there is limited research and empirical findings around Joy in general Joyful learning specifically. The challenge of operationalizing the otherwise nebulous and conflated construct of joy especially as it is interpreted by the children is one of the reasons for this. The 6F framework splits joy into its spectrum colors and reveals the many colors and their constituent shades in which joy may be experienced by the children and manifested across learning contexts. The inductive coding process used in this study to arrive at the phenomenological experience of joy, highlights several codes and subcodes that may be looked at to gauge the presence or lack thereof of some of the most salient manifestations of joyful learning through play. While some of these manifestations (like Fun and Fantasy) might be easier to observe and identify, others (like Fascination) might require a closer examination including by carefully listening to the children’s comments. Still others might be subtler like (Flow and Friendships) and might require advanced methods for surfacing and capturing these manifestations. By providing a breakdown of the themes and vocabulary for observation, the 6F framework allows for both the researchers and also the educators (teachers and parents) to observe and identify instances of joyful learning. 111 Understanding Related to the challenge of not being able to distinguish joy from other related concepts and its inherent nebulous nature, joy has not been at the center of research or empirical investigation especially as it relates to the process of learning. Understanding the 6Fs and positioning them in the context of how they promote the experiences of joy for children can help us in understanding the phenomenon of joyful learning. We can benefit from the fact that research on each of the 6F is available. Reorienting our gaze in two specific ways can help us achieve a greater understanding of Joyful learning. Firstly, by examining the existing research on each of the 6 Fs while centering its relationship with Joy, we can gain richer insights into how each of the Fs relates to Joy. This recentering of these constructs with joy as the focus will also plausibly encourage us to think about these constructs differently and anew. Secondly, a specific gaze on the relationship among the six Fs themselves might also reveal interesting insights about the interrelations. Enabling “Learning is profoundly bound up with pleasure. Certainly, learning can be made an erotic, highly pleasurable activity. Now, that a teacher should be incapable of revealing this, that his job should virtually consist of showing how unpleasant, sad, dull and unerotic learning is -- to me this is an incredible achievement. But it is an achievement that certainly has its raison d’etre. We need to know why our society considers it so important to show that learning is sad; maybe it’s because of the number of people who are excluded from it.” (Foucault, 1989, p. 135-136). 112 Before we blame educators for the growing disenchantment of students from learning, Leonrads (1987) words must be remembered “No, educators are not the culprits. They are the valiant slaves of our society, condemned to perpetuate the very system that victimizes them” (p. 8). Schools provide unique conditions where children can socialize, enjoy and learn. Schools by themselves are not an issue but the way schooling is practiced needs to be questioned. We cannot guarantee joy but our focus can be on creating the conditions for it. The 6F framework can enable reflection not only for the adults but also for the children to start thinking of how we can enable joyful learning. Facilitating and celebrating are two easy ways of enabling joyful learning. For example, for facilitating, one may select any of the six themes and examine what they need to start doing, continue doing , and stop doing to strengthen the environmental conditions to support that theme. Further, one may use the lens of 6F, to examine which pedagogical approaches, what physical environmental set-up, and what cultural dimensions can best promote joyful learning through play. Celebrating the 6F’s by including child friendly artifacts related to the 6Fs in the classroom, reflection sheets, feedback and communication material could enable more joyful learning. Research Implications and possible future directions Games only form one aspect on the spectrum of play. There are several other forms and expressions, and these must be examined for joyful learning. The comparative understanding of the lived experiences might help us analyze the affordances and the limitations of each kind of play, beyond just its linkage with learning outcomes. Outdoors and video games are two specific topics that surfaced repeatedly as I engaged with the children for this study. I did not include them in my analysis as they did not align with my focus exclusively on the indoor (Math) Games. As compared to games, there is a lot more research available on outdoor play and on 113 video games. However, I did not come across studies where the focus was on joy or on the communal aspect of the experience (play/ learning). While I see the 6Fs described in the study as applicable for both-outdoor play and video games, it will be worth examining the lived experience of children, especially from the aspect of embodied learning, and the increased sense of autonomy and agency that children enjoy in these spaces. Conclusion By centering joy and play as the core pillars of learning and resisting confining learning only to content standards, the current study encourages us to reimagine learning from the child's perspective as a more holistic, process-driven, collective, and joyful experience. In the form of the 6F framework, it provides us with a tool to observe, understand, and enable joyful learning across formal and informal learning environments. 114 Chapter 4: Reflections Methodological Implications and Possible Future Directions In this section, I elaborate on plausible methodological implications and suggest future direction with respect to experimentation with data collection, analysis, and dissemination methods. Greater participation and stronger voices of children The voice of the children is often absent, even in studies that pertain to them. This to me, is not only problematic for its view on children and childhood but also lacking as it fails to acknowledge, celebrate, and benefit from the voice of the primary stakeholder -the child! Most educational research on joyful learning and games (or on its related constructs like flow, intrinsic motivation, engagement, etc.) that I examined in preparation for this study, seems to be focused on adult’s voices and their interpretation of children’s perspectives. The following excerpt from the book ‘Early Childhood Pedagogical Play’ by Ridgway, Quinones and Li (2015), highlights what we lose out by not including the child’s perspective: What we mean by examining play from the child’s perspective is not just about the adult/researcher/educator gathering data on what the child’s perspective might be in relation to a given situation. It is far more about understanding why an adult’s perspective on play should also include, embrace, and encompass, the child’s perspective. (p. 20) There is a need to improve our research methodologies to capture the children's ideas (and preferably in their own language). The current study foregrounds the voice of the children, especially during the data gathering stage. However, it missed out on truly involving the children during the latter states during the analysis and presentation stages. COVID 19 pandemic impeded 115 the original plan for this study (see section on Research with rather than on children) which was to involve children in all stages of the research. Fielding’s (2001) four level model of student participation, discussed in the methodology section, is a useful framework for researchers to examine their paradigms and methods to ensure greater participation of children. I agree with Ridgway and colleagues (2015), when they state that- . As adults, we imagine we can put ourselves into the position of understanding what we think the child’s perspective might be. Our observations, reports, ethnographies and survey data are all used to provide us with tools to give information on what we think (emphasis added) the child’s perspective might be. (p.18) Thus, at the methodological level, the ideas discussed in this paper could be incorporated to design studies that encourage greater participation and stronger voices and of the children in research studies Using Art Based Research for researching abstract topics especially with children Related to the previous point about the need to involve children in research, we need to think beyond the traditional ways of data collection and analysis. Art-Based Research (ABR) within the broader field of qualitative inquiry is seen as “research that uses the arts, in the broadest sense, to explore, understand, represent and even challenge human action and experience” (Baden & Wimpenny, 2014, p. 1). ABR uses the evocative dimension of aesthetics to challenge the dualism of art-science (Eisner, 1981), by recognising that knowledge is embedded and incorporated rather than residing only in the mind. It can help us understand people's real lived experiences and views by generating richer insights by going beyond rational- -cognitive ways of knowing (Van der Vaart et.al. 2018) and helps us move beyond the restrictions that limit communication to express meanings that otherwise would be unintelligible 116 (Barone & Eisner, 2011). McArdle and Wright (2014) point: “[W]hen young children create art, they can be expressing astonishing conceptual understanding and imagination, well beyond what they can communicate through language” (p. 22). Hence its affordance becomes especially pertinent for understanding nebulous phenomena like joy, play, learning etc. which at their very core is subjective and contextual. This study hints at the success of using art-based methodologies for lived experiences and phenomenological understanding of abstract topics especially with children. Two of the data gathering modes that were highly successful and informative were the newsletter activity and the mock TV station set-up. Use of videos not only as data collection and analysis but also as presentation tools Highlighting the unexplored potential of videos in educational research, Tobin and Hsueh (2014) encourage us that “we should break free of educational videos’ roots in instructional films and observational analysis, and add to the goals of documenting and informing, the goals of provoking self-reflection, challenging assumptions, creating things of beauty, entertaining, and giving pleasure” (p. 77). Vagle (2018) discusses why he encourages individuals who are unsure of the phenomenon they want to study to spend time with films. He believes that movies are saturated with manifestations and appearances and take us on a journey of meaning, interpretation, insight, thoughts, and feelings. Films enable us to enter a dialogic relationship with phenomena, and much like the filmmaker, the phenomenological craftsperson, does not control what might manifest or appear to the viewer. He believes that “the reader/viewer enters into a dialogic relationship with the outcome of the phenomenologists or filmmaker’s craftwork and innumerable manifestations and appearances become thinkable” (p. 23). I interpret this potential of films to evoke a phenomenological experience both as a tool to generate rich data and present the findings in the spirit of phenomenological inquiry. I demonstrated that videos 117 were an essential component of the methodological approach at the data gathering and analysis phase. Moreover, I experiment with representing my research findings in a short video directed towards educators, parents, policymakers, and other broad audiences in a non-jargonized, accessible, and engaging format. Through this novice attempt at moviemaking, this study hints at the potential of using videos only as data collection and analysis but also as presentation tools. Key personal Takeaways Distillation As I conclude this research project, I distill some key takeaways. As I worked on the first paper, it was incredible to see how the children could self-direct their play and learn on their own. I have spent about twelve years in classrooms as a teacher. The children’s' involvement and engagement in the play and learning process reminded me of my best teaching moments. While I try to practice a learner-centered pedagogy, here I was, recreating even more powerful learning experiences by stepping further away from "teaching". Trusting the children to drive their learning demonstrated the possibility of unsupervised guided play. The second paper helped me unravel the connection between joy and learning. The ‘six F’ framework helped me capture the essence and process of joyful learning. I see the ‘six F’ framework as an easy tool that educators may apply in the educational context to make learning joyful for children. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie making process that I learnt as part of this research project. Taking my scholarship to the community and engaging in service is central to my work. I see it not only as my responsibility but also as the truest measure of the quality of my scholarship. Documenting my research in the form of movies has equipped me with a new skill. I hope to use it to promote myself as a public scholar. 118 I conducted a significant part of my research during the COVID crisis. As it derailed the lives of billions of people worldwide, it also derailed my research plans. I cannot help mentioning the COVID crisis's impact on my thinking generally and specifically about education. As I sat next to the largest window in my apartment, during the gray winter months of mid-western America, trying to capture as much sunlight as possible and listening to the chirping of the birds, simple things assumed a newer meaning in my life. As a microscopic organism made the world realize the susceptibility of human life, I realized how in times of insecurity, one yearns to be with family and friends, at a place that promises security and comfort - home! As COVID 19 has snatched away my freedom to move and my autonomy to do things as per my will, I can't help but wonder if we are justified in denying freedom to children in the name of their good (also dubbed education). While an earlier me would have objected to this comparison, based on my learning from this project, I am having trouble convincing myself of how we manage our educational institutions. The fact that we confine children for almost half of the day in the school compound, bound them within the classroom walls, and even attempt to control their movement within the periphery of their allocated space (if one is lucky- a few square feet) seems criminal to me. The spatial constraint is perhaps the less troublesome aspect of schooling. Can we say that schools are not confining the confidence, the camaraderie, the joyfulness, and the enthusiasm of the children? Is school a place that offers a sense of security and peacefulness to the child? Why are recess and free play the favorite time throughout the school day for most children? I had not anticipated that my immersion into the primary grade classroom, after a gap of around four years, would spark such reactions within me. But it does! I reckon this response is 119 partly because as I stepped into the classroom this time, I was an outsider, the proverbial ‘fly on the wall’. The emotional distance that I could afford helped me see things afresh. Destination I no longer view school as the most effective or even necessary condition for learning. In fact, I agree with many that the coercive traditional schooling system does more harm than good. As Gray (2011) states, “Even today, obedience is the main lesson of schooling, and punishment is the main vehicle for teaching it” (n.d.). Through my scholarship and practice I wish to change this. This research project has helped me understand the nuances of the complex phenomenon of joy while also realizing my own identity and educational philosophy while engaging with the children and the community. It also challenged my intellectual and creative limits as I attempted to understand a new research methodology and showcase the findings through innovative ways, including a short movie and hopefully a book in the future. I hope to use this knowledge and experience from this project to be able to design educational math artifacts and environments. This will help me reach out to classrooms and children in alignment with my philosophy of promoting play and creative exploration. -----xx----- 120 APPENDICES 121 Appendix A: Consent Form Michigan State University Consent Form for Research Participation Permission from Parents / Guardians Study Title: Joys through Toys: Children’s experience, emotions, and expression of learning with playing with math toys. Student Researcher: Amit Sharma Address and contact information: 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI-48823; 517-***-****; sharma79@msu.edu Principal Investigator: Amy Parks Address and contact information: 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517.***-****; parksamy@msu.edu Introductory note I (Amit Sharma) am a Ph.D. student in the ‘Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education’ program at Michigan State University, in the College of Education. I am conducting a research study on children’s joyful play experience including with selected math Toys. I am asking your child/ward to be part of this study. Children cannot participate in the study without parental consent. This form has important information about the reason for doing this study, what I will ask your child to do if you agree them be part of this study, and the way we would like to use information about your child that is collected and analyzed as part of this study. - Amit Sharma 1. Purpose of Research Your child is being asked to participate in a research study about - “Joys through Toys- Children’s experience, emotions, and expression of learning while playing with math toys.” From this study, the researchers hope to learn about children’s conception of Play and learning and in particular about ‘Joys through math Toys’ 2. What your child will do? 122 While the actual number of sessions and the actual content of the specific sessions might differ slightly, here is the session wise break up of what your child may be asked to do specifically for the research component. (i) Spread across the first three-four sessions, the children will (a) have around 2-3 hours to freely play with toys including the ones found in their classroom/school and also some award-winning and popular math toys selected by me. I will also be spending time observing and engaging with the children during structured and unstructured play in the school playground and other spaces. The students will be asked to (b) to provide a verbal reflection on their play experience and (c) participate in a focus group discussion discussing their experience. For the students who agree to participate in the research, selected episodes of all the three activities listed above i.e.- (a), (b), and (c) will be video and audio recorded. (ii) In the next two-three sessions, the children will watch about 15 minutes of their own selected video footage that would have been recorded during the previous sessions. The children will work with adult facilitators to edit this 15- minute footage into a 3-5-minute movie on ‘Joys through Toys.’ They may include their voice-over, narration, artwork, sound effects etc. I will identify and focus on some selected students to focus on salient aspects related to play (eg. video games as a form of play, the importance of play for children with diverse backgrounds, accessibility of play spaces for children with disabilities etc.) (iii) I will be doing similar camps /workshops across other schools and may subsequently (after 3-4 months) ask the children to watch and comment on movies made at other schools. 3. WHAT IS THE DATA THAT WILL BE COLLECTED FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT? Steps (i), (ii) and (iii) described above will be video/audio recorded and will form the data for the research. I will be analysing the collected data to answer the research question. I will also use the data gathered through the study to make a short documentary on Play. 4. IS PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH COMPULSORY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE RECREATIONAL MATH CAMP? NO! Participation in the research is not a necessary condition for your child’s involvement in the recreational math camp. If the child decides to be a part of the recreational math camp but not the research, the activities of the camp will continue to be the same for the child. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Data and results of this study may be used in publications and presentations. Your study data will be handled as confidentially as possible. If results of this study are published or presented, 123 individual names and other personally identifiable information will not be used, unless you have agreed otherwise. The children’s names will be recorded and used only if the parents and children themselves, agree to it. If you want your child to participate in the research but want their identity to not be revealed, we will try to protect the child’s confidentiality to the maximum extent. In such cases, the identifying information like names / name of school / city etc. will not be used. We cannot absolutely guarantee, though, that someone might not recognize your child, but we believe that will be very unlikely. The issue of consent and confidentiality will be discussed with the children during the camp. As authors (director) of the 3-5-minute movie made as part of this camp, the children will have to seek consent from everyone appearing in the movie to share the movie further. I will be sharing the movie with the participating children through Google-Drive. The data recorded as part of this research will be stored on password-protected computers and password protected hard drives. You may decide not to participate in the research. You will still get to be part of the activities and your participation in the research will in no way impact the assessment /grade for the course. 6. YOUR AND YOUR CHILD’S RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you or your child are otherwise entitled. You or your child may withdraw from participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You and your child have the right to say no. Even if you consent, your child will be asked if he or she wants to participate in the interview, and has the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. Your child may change his or her mind at any time and withdraw, even in the middle of the interview. Your child may choose not to complete any of the tasks. 7. POSSIBLE RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS? To the best of my knowledge, the things your child will be doing have no more risk of harm than you would experience in everyday life. As with all research, there is a chance that confidentiality of the information we collect could be breached – we will take steps to minimize this risk, as discussed in more detail below in this form. 124 8. POSSIBLE BENEFITS Your child or you are not likely to have any direct tangible benefit from being in this research study. We will not compensate any of the participants for participation in the research. 9. WHO CAN I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS RESEARCH STUDY? If you have questions, you are free to ask them now. If you have questions later, you may contact the researchers at Amit Sharma , 517-***-****, sharma79@msu.edu or the Principal Investigator – Amy Parks , parksamy@msu.edu 10. CONSENT I have read this form and the research study has been explained to me. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions and my questions have been answered. If I have additional questions, I have been told whom to contact. I agree to my child participate in the research study described above. Parents Yes No 1. I want my child to be part of the research. 2. I am OK with my child's original name being used for the data collection and future documentation. If you indicate NO, a pseudonym will be used for the name. 3. I agree to my child being part of the study and being video and audio recorded for this purpose. _________________________ Parent’s name ___________________________________________ ________________ Parents’s Signature Date 125 Students Section ( If 13 years or above) Yes No 1. I want to be part of the research. 2. I am OK with my original name being used for the data collection and future documentation. If you indicate NO, a pseudonym will be used for the name. 3. I agree to be part of the study and being video and audio recorded for this purpose. _________________________ Students Name (printed) ___________________________________________ ________________ Student’s Signature Date 126 Appendix B: Observing Play as Learning (OPAL) Protocol Table 3: Observing Play as Learning (OPAL) Protocol HIGH LOW Thinking and Problem Solving Constructing new Children’s behavior, facial expression, and /or The play shows limited signs of thinking, with mostly knowledge verbalizations indicate that they are engaged in repetitive actions without obvious reflection; use of deep reflection and learning. familiar vocabulary and strategies. Verbalizations and actions during the play reveal the acquisition of new concepts,strategies, and/or vocabulary. Critical Thinking, The play shows specific and varied problem The play relies on simple solutions and repetitive and Problem Solving solving and decision making behaviors. Problems strategies. The challenges are more like exercises are by their very nature unpredictable and hence (than problems) with known or predictable solutions. require careful deliberation and multiple Alternative solutions are not attempted and children alternative strategies. do not assess the outcomes of their strategies. Children consider alternative solutions and the discourse show they evaluate the success of these. Creativity and Imagination Creative Expression During the play the children engage in open- During the game play children do not engage in self- and Novelty ended, verbal and non-verbal expression; Play is expression;their actions are mostly repetitive and divergent and is replete with actions that are conventional. original, unconventional, flexible and/or extends the ideas by other players. 127 Table 3 (cont’d) Imagination and Play demonstrates imagination where play Children engage in play only in conventional ways Transformation of worlds or scenarios are created with events, with limited imaginative thought or action. The play Reality actions, objects that are not present. These narratives are not sustained and/or carried forward by imaginations and make-believe symbols and the peers. situations are communicated to peers who build upon the play narratives. Social Interaction Communication Play reveals frequent and meaningful interaction The children rarely interact within the context of the and reciprocal discourse. play. The play is individual in nature with brief and The play is often at the collective level isolated verbal interchanges. encouraging frequent dialogue. Independent use and Play reveals timely and satisfactory resolution of There are frequent disruptions to the play because of conflict resolution conflicts (social and intellectual) by the children the need for adult intervention or guidance about the without the need for adult intervention. The play rules. There is confusion and frustration if the adult is is without signs of frustration and confusion. absent to resolve the social or intellectual conflict arising during the play. Collaborative Play demonstrates both cognitive and social The participation of children remains individualistic Problem Solving processes including participation, perspective and isolated. The participation is lacking in social/ (CPS) taking, social and task regulation, and knowledge intellectual pooling of skills, knowledge and building. resources. The ability, skills and resources of a single child is not enough to solve the problem and is pooled during CPS 128 Table 3 (cont’d) Interest, Curiosity, and Engagement Attracts, holds Children exhibit a positive effect and /or make Children do not feel attracted towards the play. They interest and engages statements that indicate their desire to continue engage in multiple side conversations ( not related to the learner playing. Mistakes do not dampen the children’s the game/play). The excitement wanes if they realize excitement and they show signs of learning from that they have made a mistake and or losing. their mistakes. Children do not give-up if they Verbalization and actions indicate that they do not lose and persist with the play for extended want to continue playing. periods. Curiosity and Children ask questions as they play. They show Children are not very interested and involved in the Inquiry, and intense situational interest in the play. play. They rarely ask questions and show limited Exploration They engage in frequent exploratory behaviors exploratory behavior. The questions raised by player during the games, posing questions and taking are seldom taken-up by the group and hence curiosity steps to answer the questions raised by the group and inquiry, at the individual level is not promoted to during the play. the group level. 129 Appendix C: Description of Toys Used Included below is a brief description of the toys used in the research study. The last two toys (Proof Games and Dominoes) were removed at the end of the fourth session as the children did not select them from the collection of toys available and shared that they did not enjoy them as much in comparison to the other toys. Table 4: Description of the toys used (Math) Toy Description Prime Climb Prime Climb is a game to explore the mathematical structure of the four arithmetic operations and prime numbers in a fast-paced, dynamic game of strategy and luck. More details- https://mathforlove.com/games/prime-climb/ Amazon link- https://www.amazon.com/Math-for-Love- Prime- Climb/dp/B00PG9590G/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1 &keywords=prime+climb&qid=1603159127 &s=toys-and-games&sr=1-1 PicassoTiles Magentic 100 Piece Set Picasso Tiles are magnetic pieces that come in different shapes and snap on to the other pieces magentically. It allows the construction of three dimensional shapes. Amazon link- https://www.amazon.com/PicassoTiles- Construction-Inspirational-Recreational- Conventional/dp/B00AU56C5W 130 Table 4 (cont’d) BlockUs It is marketed as a strategy game. The four players take turns placing their 21 pieces on the board with each piece must touch another of the same color, but only at the corners. The aim is to claim maximum area by fitting as many of your pieces on the board as possible while strategically blocking your opponents! Amazon Link - https://www.amazon.com/Mattel-Games- R1983-Blokus- Exclusive/dp/B001P06GX4/ref=sr_1_1?dchil d=1&keywords=block+us&qid=1603159174 &sr=8-1 Ravensburger Labyrinth-Board Game The alternate tiles on the board are movable and hence the board acquires a dynamic character with every turn. The aim for the players is to reach all the treasures and targets (mentioned in the cards that they draw) as they move through the Labyrinth. Amazon Link - https://www.amazon.com/Ravensburger- Labyrinth-Board-Game- Adults/dp/B00000J0JF/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1 &keywords=Ravensburger+Labyrinth- Board+Game&qid=1603159500&sr=8-1 131 Table 4 (cont’d) Clumsy Thief Players look at their dealt hand for any two cards that add to $100 to make money stacks. Money stacks can be taken from other players if a player has a card in his hand that makes $100 when added to the top card of an opponent's stack. Thief cards also snatch stacks. Jail cards stop Thief cards. All players are actively adding and snatching. The player with the most money wins! Amazon link- https://www.amazon.com/Melon-Rind-2013- 1-CLUMSY- THIEF/dp/B00EBCDXCA/ref=sr_1_5?dchild =1&keywords=clumsy+thief&qid=16031603 99&sr=8-5 ThinkFun Math Dice The children roll the six dices and try to get the number on the white dice (1-10) using any of the four arithmetic operations on the other 5 numbers on the colored dices. The more the number of dice used, to get the target number (white dice) the more they can move ahead. Amazon Link - https://www.amazon.com/ThinkFun-Math- Dice-Junior- Girls/dp/B004617DEU/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1 &keywords=thinkfun+math+dice&qid=16031 60574&sr=8-1 132 Table 4 (cont’d) Chroma Cubes Chroma Cube is a puzzles that uses deductive reasoning skills by showing the position of some color cubes, and giving clues that can be used to deduce where the other colors go. Amazon Link- https://www.amazon.com/Project-Genius- Chroma-Teaser- Assorted/dp/B07DR84LKZ/ref=sr_1_1?dchil d=1&keywords=chroma+cubes&qid=160316 0977&sr=8-1 Dominoes A classic game, in the blocking version of dominoes each player draws seven tiles from the stock that are placed on-edge in front of the players (based on some rules). The player wins by playing their last tile. There are various versions of the basic Amazon Link- https://www.amazon.com/Regal-Games- Double-Dominoes- Reusable/dp/B07JQ6ZX7Y/ref=sr_1_6?dchil d=1&keywords=dominoes&qid=1603161534 &sr=8-6 133 Table 4 (cont’d) Proof! The game encourages mental mathematics. The players draw 9 cards and then use them to form mathematically correct equalities using the four operations and square root as the operations. Amazon link - https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Fast-Paced- Mental- Magic/dp/B07C5TKRL8/ref=sr_1_1?dchild= 1&keywords=proof&qid=1603161257&sr=8- 1 134 Appendix D: Links to Animated Movies Movie 1: Unsupervised Play with games https://youtu.be/hJvRVDkjVlw Movie 2: Joy through learning and 6Fs https://youtu.be/kVe5d3T-gmc 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children's development: a review of the evidence. Psychological bulletin, 139(1), 1. Aina, O. E. (2001). Maximizing learning in early childhood multiage classrooms: Child, teacher, and parent perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(4), 219-224. Baden, M. S., & Wimpenny, K. (2014). A practical guide to arts-related research. Springer. Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2011). Arts based research. Sage. Biswas-Diener, R. (2011). Manipulating happiness: Maria Montessori. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(2). Boaler, J. (2009). What’s Math Got to Do with It?: How Parents and Teachers Can Help Children Learn to Love Their Least Favorite Subject (Reprint edition).New York: Penguin Books. Boaler, J., & Dweck, C. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints. Bragg, L. (2006, January). Students impressions of the value of games for the learning of mathematics. In Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 217-224). International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Budd, J. M. (2005). Phenomenology and information studies. Journal of documentation, 61(1), 44-59. Cai, J. (2010). Helping elementary school students become successful mathematical problem solvers. In D. Lambdin (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematics: Translating research to the classroom (pp. 9-14). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. CCSSM: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC. Cibangu, S. K., & Hepworth, M. (2016). The uses of phenomenology and phenomenography: A critical review. Library & Information Science Research, 38(2), 148- 160. 137 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 Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative research. In Annual North American Primary Care Research Group Meeting, 19th, May, 1989, Quebec, PQ, Canada. Sage Publications, Inc. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1999). Why does one want to learn. The educational role of the museum, 2. Dahlberg, K. (2006). The essence of essences–the search for meaning structures in phenomenological analysis of lifeworld phenomena. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 1(1), 11-19. Daniels, H. (2002). Vygotsky and pedagogy. Routledge. Danniels, E., & Pyle, A. (2018). Defining play-based learning. Encyclopedia on early childhood development, 1-5. DeSantis, L., & Ugarriza, D. N. (2000). The concept of theme as used in qualitative nursing research. Western journal of nursing research, 22(3), 351-372. Dewey, J., & Authentic, I. E. L. (1938). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Pentice Hall. Duncan, J., & West, R. E. (2018). Conceptualizing group flow: A framework. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(1), 1-11. Edwards, C. P. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early childhood research & practice, 4(1), n1. Eisner, E. W. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Educational researcher, 10(4), 5-9. Emmons, R. A., Greaves, M. R., & Bell, J. (2018). Joy is a distinct positive emotion: Assessment of joy and relationship to gratitude and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(5), 522-539. Fielding, M. (2001). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or new constraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling. Forum, 43(2), 100–110. Finlay, L. (2009). Ambiguous encounters: A relational approach to phenomenological research. Indo-Pacific journal of phenomenology, 9(1), 1-17. 138 Fisher, K. R., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers' acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child development, 84(6),1872-1878. Fisher, K. R., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers' acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child development, 84(6), 1872-1878. Foucault, M. (1989/1996). Talk Show. In Foucault Live: Interviews 1961-1984. Lotringer, S. (Ed.). Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition & emotion, 12(2),191-220. Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. Peter Lang. Giorgi, A. (1975). An application of phenomenological method in psychology. Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology, 2, 82-103. Gleave, J., & Cole-Hamilton, I. (2012). A literature review on the effects of a lack of play on children’s lives. England: Play England. Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Becoming brilliant: What science tells us about raising successful children. American Psychological Association. Goouch, K. (2008). Understanding playful pedagogies, play narratives and play spaces. Early Years, 28(1), 93-102. Graue, M. E. & Walsh, D. J. (1998) Studying children in context: theories, methods, and ethics (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage). Gray, P. (2009). Play as a foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence. American Journal of play, 1(4), 476-522. Gray, P. (2013). Free to learn: Why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children happier, more self-reliant, and better students for life. Hachette UK Halton, N. (2021). Why we need to stop Hikjacking Children's Play Under the Guise of "Interest Based Learning". Retrieved from https://www.inspiredec.com/blogs/the-inspired- ec-blog/why-we-need-to-stop-hikjacking-childrens-play-under-the-guise-of-interest-based- learning Hamilton, L. S. (2011). Testing What Has Been Taught: Helpful, High-Quality Assessments Start with a Strong Curriculum. American Educator, 34(4), 47-52. 139 Hasan, N. (2016). Joyful learning: A step towards the positive classroom. International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 6(1), 133. Hassinger-Das, B., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). The case of brain science and guided play. YC Young Children, 72(2), 45-50. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Applying the scientific evidence. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning.Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3-34 Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Hadani, H. S., Golinkoff, R. M., Clark, K., Donohue, C., & Wartella, E. (2022). A whole new world: Education meets the metaverse. Policy. Holt, J. (1982). How children fail. Hunter, J. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.(2003). The positive psychology of interested adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 32(1), 27-35. Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human studies, 8(3), 279-303. Jewitt, C. 2012. “An Introduction to using Video for Research.” NCRM Working Paper. National Center for Research Methods. Accessed July 3, 2015. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/ Johnson, M. K. (2020). Joy: A reply to the replies. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(1), 84-88. Kohn, A. (2004a). Feel-bad education. Education Week, 24(3), 44-45. Kohn, A. (2004b). The cult of rigor and the loss of joy. Education Week, 24, 3-6. Krechevsky, M., & Baker, M. (2016). Towards a Pedagogy of Play, (July),1–17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press. Lecusay, R., Nilsson, M., & Ferholt, B. (2017). Exploratory playworlds: Reconsidering the relationship between pretend play and exploration in early childhood education. In 5th International Congress of the International Societyfor Cultural-HistoricalActivity Research, Quebec, August 28th-September1st, 2017. Leonard, G. (1987). Education and Ecstasy: With," The Great School Reform Hoax". North Atlantic Books. 140 Lewis, M. (2000). The emergence of human emotions. Handbook of emotions, 2, 265-280. Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem-solving. In Posing and solving mathematical problems (pp. 361-386). Springer, Cham. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children's development: a review of the evidence. Psychological bulletin, 139(1),1–34 Lumby, J. (2011). Enjoyment and learning: policy and secondary school learners’ experience in England. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903540680 Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Reviewof general psychology, 9(2),111-131. Manen, V. M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge. Mardell, B., Wilson, D., Ryan, J., Ertel, K., Krechevsky, M., & Baker, M. (2016). Towards a Pedagogy of Play, (July), 1–17. McArdle, F., & Wright, S. K. (2014). First literacies: Art, creativity, play, constructive meaning-making. In Literacy in the Arts (pp. 21-37). Springer, Cham. Meadows, C. (2013). A psychological perspective on joy and emotional fulfillment. Routledge. Middleton, J. A., Jansen, A., & Goldin, G. A. (2017). The complexities of mathematical engagement: Motivation, affect, and social interactions. Compendium for research in mathematics education, 667-699. Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.(1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of personality, 64(2), 275-310. Mooney, C. G. (2000). An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson and Vygotsky. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Research Council, & Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. 141 Oldfield, B. J. (1991). Games in the learning of mathematics: 1: A classification. Mathematics in School, 20(1), 41-43. Olson, K. (2009). Wounded by school: Recapturing the joy in learning and standing up to old school culture. Teachers College Press. Oviawe, J. O. (2016). How to rediscover the ubuntu paradigm in education. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Policy and secondary school learners’ experience in England. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 247-264. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Johansson, E. (2006). Play and learning—inseparable dimensions in preschool practice. Early child development and care, 176(1), 47-65. 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., DeLuca, C., & Danniels, E. (2017). A scoping review of research on play-based pedagogies in kindergarten education. Review of Education, 5(3), 311–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3097 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. Rantala, T., & Määttä, K. (2012). Ten theses of the joy of learning at primary schools. Early Child Development and Care, 182(1), 87-105. Rantala, T., Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2016). Teaching children with joy. In The Basics of Caring Research (pp.19-31). Brill Sense. Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American journal of education, 111(3), 341-371. Reed, K. E., & Young, J. M. (2019). Play Games, Learn Math!. Number Path. Ridgway, A., Quiñones, G., & Li, L. (2015). Early childhood pedagogical play: A cultural- historical interpretation using visual methodology. Springer. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 142 Roth, W. M., & Jornet, A. (2014). Toward a theory of experience. Science education, 98(1), 106-126. Rouleau, M. (2020). 10 Years of TIMPANI: Annual Study Investigates the Paradox of Play. Retrieved from https://www.easternct.edu/news/_stories-and-releases/2020/02- february/timpani.html Russo, J., Russo, T., & Bragg, L. A. (2018). Five principles of educationally rich mathematical games. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 23(3), 30-34. Rymanowicz, K. (2015). The power of play – Part 5: Adult roles in child’s play. Retrieved from https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/the_power_of_play_part_5_adult_roles_in_childs_play Samuelsson, I. P., & Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 52(6), 623-641. Sawyer K (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 3(2), 81. Schmoelz, A. (2018). Enabling co-creativity through digital storytelling in education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, 1-13. Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford review of education, 35(3), 293-311. Shernoff, E. S., Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2003). Training in evidence-based interventions (EBIs): What are school psychology programs teaching?. Journal of School Psychology, 41(6),467-483. Shoecraft, K. and Flückiger, B. (2018), “Conducting qualitative video research with young children”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 238-247. Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C. M., Byrne, E. M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E. C., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Child Development. Sloan, H. K. (2011). Joy. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 45(4), 419-431. Squire, K. D. (2007). Games, learning, and society: Building a field. Educational Technology, 51-55. 143 Stanford, (2016). Learning Math Through Play [Video].YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f-YPD0sSmU Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2017). Self-beliefs: Strong correlates of mathematics achievement and intelligence. Intelligence, 61, 11-16. Toub, T. S., Rajan, V., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). Guided play: A solution to the play versus learning dichotomy. In Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 117-141). Springer, Cham. Trawick-Smith, J. (2014). The physical play and motor development of young children: A review of literature and implications for practice. Center for Early ChildhoodEducation, Eastern Connecticut State University Trawick-Smith, J., Russell, H., & Swaminathan, S. (2011). Measuring the effects of toys on the problem-solving, creative, and social behaviours of preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 181(7), 909-927. Trawick-Smith, J., Wolff, J., Koschel, M., & Vallarelli, J. (2014). Which toys promote high-quality play? Reflections on the five-year anniversary of the TIMPANI study. YC Young Children, 69(2), 40. Udvari-Solner A. (2012) Joyful Learning. In: Seel N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. Udvari-Solner, A., & Kluth, P. (2007). Transforming classrooms through active and collaborative learning. Joyful learning: Active and collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC]. (2013). General comments No. 17 on the right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life, and the arts (ar. 31). The Convention on the Rights of the Child., (3), 12. https://doi.org/10.2307/4065371 Usher, A., & Kober, N. (2012). Student Motivation: An Overlooked Piece of School Reform. Summary. Center on Education Policy. Vagle, M. D. (2018). Crafting phenomenological research. Routledge. Vaillant, G. E. (2008). Faith, hope, and joy: The neurobiology of positive emotions. Van den Hout, J. J., Davis, O. C., & Weggeman, M. C. (2018). The conceptualization of team flow. The Journal of psychology, 152(6), 388-423. 144 Van der Vaart, G., van Hoven, B., & Huigen, P. P. (2018, May). Creative and arts-based research methods in academic research. Lessons from a participatory research project in the Netherlands. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 30). Freie Universität Berlin. Villavicencio, F. T., & Bernardo, A. B. (2016). Beyond math anxiety: Positive emotions predict mathematics achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 415-422. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press. Watkins, P. C. (2020). Appraising joy. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(1), 25- 29.Watkins, P. C., 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. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2-3. Whitebread, D (2017). Learning through play: a review of the evidence. Billund, Denmark: LEGO Fonden. White, R. E. (2012). The Power of Play: A Research Summary on Play and Learning. Smart Play, 15–25. Whitebread, D., Neale, D., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Solis, S. L., Hopkins, E., Zosh, J. (2017). The role of play in children’s development: a review of the evidence. Willis, J. (2007). Cooperative learning is a brain turn-on. Middle school journal, 38(4), 4- 13. Wolk, S. (2008). Joy in school. Educational leadership, 66(1), 8-15. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for research in mathematics education, 27(4), 458-477. Yu, C. & Calderon, J.V. (2017). Student Enthusiasm Falls as High School Graduation Nears. Gallup retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/211631/student- enthusiasm-falls-high-school-graduation-nears.aspx 145 Yu, Y., Shafto, P., Bonawitz, E., Yang, S. C. H., Golinkoff, R. M., Corriveau, K. H., ... & Xu, F. (2018). The theoretical and methodological opportunities afforded by guided play with young children. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1152. Zolob, T. (2014). Student Engagement: Experiencing the Joy of Learning through, Learning in Depth. Unpublished master thesis, Vancouver Island University. Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., ... & Whitebread, D. (2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1124. 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. 146