Play, often viewed as a dynamic knowledge system, teeters on the edge of a child’s capabilities, and it has been the subject of multifaceted theoretical exploration concerning its diverse purposes, values, meanings, nature, effects, and influences (Bergen, 2014). Numerous classical theories of play, including those by Freud, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky, have laid the groundwork for more contemporary theories that associate play with factors such as culture, environment, child development, and learning.

The notion of play as an educational vehicle can be traced back to ancient times, with Plato making early observations on the phenomenon (Morris, 1998). Subsequently, the typology of play has evolved, with Bergen (2014) categorizing theories of play into four historical periods: early theories encompassing Plato’s ideas, Enlightenment perspectives, late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century theories, and mid-to late twentieth-century theories.

During the Renaissance, Comenius (1632) and Locke (1693) delved into the educational implications of play and its positive impact on childhood development. These early perspectives laid the foundation for later theories of play. Figures like Froebel (1887), Pestalozzi (1894), Dewey (1910), and Montessori (1914) emphasized the educational value of play, while Schiller (1875), and Spencer (1873), and Groos (1898) explored its purpose.

In the mid-twentieth century, theories of play shifted their focus to defining play and understanding its purpose, conceptualizing it as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Influential thinkers such as Freud (1917/1956), Mead (1934), Piaget (1945), Huizinga (1950), Bateson (1955), Erikson (1963), and Vygotsky (1967) contributed significantly to these discussions. Their work underpins contemporary theories related to the stages of play and the cultural diversity of play, shedding light on how play fosters child development and learning (Gaskins, 2014).

The concept of play within early childhood education encompasses a diverse range of definitions and frameworks, reflecting the complexity of its role in child development. Scholars have extensively explored play, highlighting its multifaceted nature and the critical role of child initiative (Pellegrini, 1991; Sutton-Smith, 1997; Meckley, 2002; Broadhead, 2004). Garvey (1991) champions child-led play, emphasizing the importance of children’s autonomy in choosing their play activities, which supports problem-solving, language acquisition, and social development. In contrast, Wood and Attfield (2005) present a continuum of play activities, ranging from free play, initiated entirely by the child, to non-play, directed solely by adults.

A significant debate in the field of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) revolves around the distinction between play and work. Sutton-Smith (1997) views play as a voluntary, enjoyable activity driven by intrinsic motivation, whereas work is seen as obligatory. Montessori (1964) blurs these boundaries by suggesting play is “the child’s work,” highlighting the developmental importance of play activities. Elkind (2001) further articulates that play and work are not mutually exclusive but are complementary and can coexist, enhancing the learning experience.

Amidst these discussions, the concept of “pedagogical play” emerges as a bridge between free play and structured learning. Initially introduced by Edwards and Cutter-Mackenzie (2013), pedagogical play is characterized by a collaborative approach between the child and the educator, integrating educational objectives within a playful context. This form of play is designed to maintain the intrinsic motivation and enjoyment characteristic of free play while achieving specific learning outcomes.

Further elaborating on this concept, Stewart and Pugh (2007) and Rogers (2011) describe pedagogical play as an environment where educators strategically incorporate learning goals within play activities. This approach respects children’s interests and agency, leveraging their natural curiosity and engagement for educational purposes.

The terminology surrounding pedagogical play varies among scholars, reflecting the diversity of its applications. Epstein (2007) and Duncan (2009) refer to it as “intentional teaching,” emphasizing strategic educator involvement in play to meet learning objectives. Fleer (2011) introduces “conceptual play,” where imagination and cognition converge in play-based learning, actively fostering children’s conceptual understanding. Hardman (2008) uses “pedagogical activity” to describe the introduction of new experiences within a familiar context, expanding children’s knowledge base. Postman and Weingartner (1969) advocate for “educational inquiry” within play, encouraging a questioning and exploratory approach.

Wood (2014) categorizes pedagogical play into three types: child-initiated, adult-guided, and technical, each differing in the level of educator involvement and pedagogical intent. Building on this, Edwards and Cutter-Mackenzie (2013) delineate pedagogical play into open-ended (minimal teacher involvement), modeled (moderate involvement), and purposefully framed play (high involvement), each varying in structure and educational objectives.

The definition and interpretation of play vary across economic, social, and cultural contexts (Wood and Attfield, 2005; Rogers and Evans, 2008). It’s worth noting that the idealized concept of play is not always reflected in practice. For instance, while official documents worldwide promote play-based learning as a fundamental principle in early childhood education, practical guidelines to support play-based teaching are often lacking (Wood and Bennett, 1997). Additionally, individual teachers may have varying understandings and interpretations of the value of play and play-based curricula, leading to disparities between play rhetoric and classroom reality in many Western countries (Bennett et al., 1997; Wood and Bennett, 1997; Badzis, 2003; Wood, 2010).

Several factors contribute to this divide between theory and practice. Play is inherently spontaneous and unpredictable, making it challenging to assess. Yet, teachers are often required to demonstrate children’s learning and progress to parents through systematic documentation. There can also be misconceptions about how to teach and learn through play, the impact of play activities, and the relationship between play and play-based curricula (McAuley and Jackson, 1992; Wood and Bennett, 1997).

Kagan (1990) identifies three common barriers hindering the implementation of play in early childhood classrooms:

Attitudinal barriers: These relate to the attitudes of parents, educators, and community members toward play.

Early Learning Centers (ELCs) represent a pivotal component within the global early childhood education spectrum, characterized predominantly by a “learning through play” pedagogy. This approach, which is foundational to playgroups, center-based programs, and ELCs, underscores the integration of play in learning processes (Dadich and Spooner, 2008). In the context of China, ELCs have rapidly evolved into prominent educational entities. Distinct from conventional kindergartens, they provide a blend of academic and play-oriented learning, with a pronounced emphasis on the latter to foster holistic child development. Despite their commercial orientation, these centers primarily aim to deliver an encompassing educational experience that harmonizes imported educational philosophies with indigenous expectations (Britto et al., 2013; Woodhead and Streuli, 2013).

The emergence of ELCs in China mirrors a broader inclination toward adopting Western educational frameworks, particularly the play-based curricula favored by the Chinese middle class (Tobin et al., 2009; Crabb, 2010). Unlike traditional kindergartens that incorporate play as a component of their curriculum, ELCs are distinguished by their unwavering commitment to a play-centered educational model. This distinction makes them especially appealing to parents desirous of a Western-style education for their offspring (Ma, 2010).

Notably, Chinese ELCs cater to a wide age range, starting from infancy, which sets them apart from the standard kindergarten age group of three to 6 years (Vaughan, 1993). The significant presence of over 274,400 registered kindergartens across China in 2023 underscores the burgeoning market for ELCs, particularly among urban middle-class families (Strandell, 2013). The proliferation of ELC chains, exemplified by a network exceeding 1,000 branches in Beijing alone in 2023, attests to the escalating demand for such educational services (RYB Education Institute, 2023).

The private-for-profit sector’s role in the global early childhood care and education (ECCE) landscape, as highlighted by Woodhead and Streuli (2013), encompasses service provision, funding, and innovation. This sector has attracted attention due to quality concerns in certain public early childhood settings, leading to a notable expansion in countries with a pronounced emphasis on education, including China (Sosinky et al., 2007; Britto et al., 2013). The fusion of imported and local educational ideologies within Chinese ELCs offers a unique lens to explore the dynamics of cultural hybridity in education (Tikly, 1999; Pence and Shafer, 2006). As facilitators of academic and experiential learning, ELCs play a crucial role in shaping the educational trajectories of children, providing both academic instruction and enriching play-based experiences (Owen and Moss, 1989; McFarland-Piazza et al., 2012, cited by Statham and Brophy, 1991).

To gain insights into teachers’ perspectives, the study employed a purposive sampling strategy, selecting subjects based on specific criteria (Creswell, 2013). The research took place in four Western-style, play-based early learning centers located in Shenzhen, mainland China. Each center constituted an individual case, and the case boundaries encompassed full-time teaching staff. Sixteen participants, four from each center, were chosen according to the following criteria: (a) Chinese teachers instructing children aged 0–6 years; (b) Chinese teachers with at least 1 year of experience in the center (ensuring familiarity with the center’s curriculum); and (c) teachers who had received pre-service teacher training before joining the center but had not worked or studied overseas (ensuring their perspectives and practices were influenced by Chinese education rather than Western ideologies, aligning with the research questions). The participant group consisted of 15 female teachers and one male teacher, all of whom had worked in their respective centers for over a year. For participants in Cases 1–4, the mean and standard deviations (Mean ± standard deviations) for Enrollment Years are as follows: 2.88 ± 1.11, 2.25 ± 1.19, 2.00 ± 0.71, and 1.63 ± 0.25, respectively. To protect their anonymity, pseudonyms were used for all participants. A brief introduction of each participant is presented in Table 1.

Interviews with 16 participants were conducted, each lasting about 45 min. These interviews probed into the teachers’ perceptions of play, alongside gathering background information such as age, gender, educational qualifications, and prior experiences in early childhood education (see Table 2).

The analysis involved three stages:

Initial Coding with NVivo 10: NVivo 10 software facilitated initial coding. The software processed interview transcripts and field notes, automatically categorizing raw data into preliminary topics. Through inductive coding, guided by our research questions and theoretical framework, these topics were continuously compared and contrasted, leading to the emergence of basic patterns.

In the perspective of nearly all participants, play was synonymous with “free play,” characterized by delight and enjoyment, driven by intrinsic motivation without explicit external objectives, and characterized by active and engaging participation. Across all four cases, teachers unanimously agreed that play is fundamentally about having fun, emphasizing that anything that brings joy and happiness to children can be considered play. Happiness and fun were deemed paramount aspects of play, with participants valuing the positive emotions, especially happiness, that children experience during play.

For example, from case1, Helen posits that play is defined by pleasure, suggesting that a child’s happiness is the essence of play. JoJo equates playing to having fun, noting that children are in a state of play continuously. Sunny emphasizes that play extends beyond structured activities, encompassing any action that brings joy to children, even reading outside of class. WenWen broadens the definition further, stating that any activity that makes a child happy qualifies as play, happening anytime and anywhere. From case 2, Abby emphasized the importance of happiness in play, stating, “happiness that is created in play is significant for human beings, especially for children.” She believes that personal joy is paramount, and without enjoyment in activities, one cannot be truly happy. Lynn expanded on this idea by advocating for play as a medium to sustain happiness and fun, which she considered crucial for a better life. She stressed the value of children’s happiness in play and the role of adults in amplifying this joy by engaging with and encouraging children during play, suggesting that such shared joy can enhance the play experience and keep children focused and involved. As Anson, Cherish, Nemo, and Rose from case 4 mentioned, play encompasses a wide range of activities that bring joy to children, whether it’s playing baseball with friends, climbing trees, enjoying outdoor time, or even observing the world around them. Essentially, any activity that children engage in with joy can be considered play.

In summary, the participants shared a consensus that happiness and fun are fundamental components of play. They stressed the importance of creating a joyful environment for children and allowing them the freedom to engage in activities that bring them happiness and enjoyment.

In all cases, the teachers acknowledged the importance of child autonomy as a defining characteristic of play. They agreed that allowing children the freedom to make choices was crucial. However, there were slight variations in their perspectives.

In Case 1, child autonomy was explored at multiple levels. This included granting children the freedom to make choices, recognizing their readiness to engage in play, and avoiding imposing strict teaching goals or learning objectives during playtime. This approach aligned with Bruce (1991) belief that children should have the ability to choose what they want to do, how they want to do it, and when to transition to a different activity during play. Importantly, it was noted that even activities resembling work, such as reading and writing, could be considered play if children engaged in them willingly.

Teachers in the other cases also emphasized child autonomy but placed a stronger focus on understanding children’s interests and providing options for them to select from. This approach was rooted in recognizing children’s perspectives, interests, needs, desires, individual experiences, and likes and dislikes. Participants in Cases 2, 3, and 4, such as Alice, Cindy, and Lynn, stressed the importance of children’s willingness to participate in play. They believed that teachers should facilitate an environment where children could freely choose from a set of options.

Some participants highlighted that although children should have choices, they may not always have complete control over their activities. Instead, teachers could present a limited number of options to encourage children to develop self-control and decision-making skills. This perspective aligned with the concept of “modeled play,” where teachers minimally intervene, present various objects for exploration, demonstrate different approaches, and allow children to decide how to engage with them.

In all the cases discussed, the teachers emphasized the vital role of interactions, whether with people, objects, or the environment, in the context of play-based learning.

In Case 1, teachers emphasized the significance of interactive experiences, especially in the context of human relationships, within playful environments. They highlighted the necessity of creating playful opportunities for children to interact with peers, thereby bolstering their sense of security and social competencies. An example provided to illustrate this point was the act of shaking hands, which, despite the variety of customs across different cultures, universally represents politeness and civility. Introducing children to the practice of shaking hands within play settings was advocated as a method to nurture their interpersonal skills, demonstrating how structured play activities can serve as a conduit for teaching valuable social norms and behaviors.

Case 3 participants emphasized the significance of interactions, especially with objects and the surrounding environment. They believed that children could connect their personal beliefs to their understanding of the world. Through such connections, children could explore the functions of the world and objects within it. Play was viewed as the primary way children made sense of their surroundings, discovering wonders, investigating object properties, and gaining an understanding of how the world functions and evolves. Exploring objects and their environment during play often led to new discoveries.

Case 4 teachers regarded real-life experiences as a crucial element of play. They highlighted the importance of integrating children’s real-life experiences into play to help children make sense of their lives. Using tangible objects like food, fruit, and animals in play was considered motivating and engaging.

The following are some examples:

The concept of spontaneous learning in play was seen as a crucial element by teachers in both Case 3 and Case 4. They believed that young children could learn spontaneously and freely through play, with a particular focus on the development of creativity, imagination, communication, and problem-solving skills.

In Case 3, Alice provided an example to illustrate how play, particularly block building, could foster problem-solving skills. Children, through multiple attempts, figured out how to construct a stable house by stacking blocks of various shapes and sizes in precise ways. This process of trial and error allowed them to develop critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.

In Case 4, Cherish emphasized that socio-dramatic play enabled children to learn about acceptance, understanding of others, and social responsibilities. Children could also use this type of play to explore and learn how to address social issues by pretending to take on roles like a postman, a salesperson, or a waiter.

While Case 2 did not explicitly describe play as a process of spontaneous learning, they recognized the educational value of activities like role play and sand play. These activities were believed to enhance children’s self-expression, imagination, and self-confidence. For instance,