The Importance of Play in Pre-School Education: Naturalisation Versus a Marxist Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this chapter is to analyse the similarities and differences between Froebel on the one hand and Elkonin and Leontyev on the other, taking into account the contributions that these authors have made to child development psychology and pre-school education. To this end, we will make a comparison between Froebel's ideas and those of Activity Theory with respect to the role of play in child development at pre-school age. The text is organised into three parts. The first one aims at presenting a brief description of Froebel's conception of child development and the role of play. The objective of the second part is to analyse Elkonin/Leontyev's conception of the same subjects. In the third section, we present some conclusions that have been drawn from this comparative analysis. PLAY ACCORDING TO FROEBEL – SELF-ACTIVITY AND THE VITAL UNITY WITH RESPECT TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT To present the principles of child development that are the foundation of Froebel's conceptions of play, we take into account three works by this author: The Education of Man, The Mottoes and Commentaries of Friedrich Froebel's Mother Play , and Pedagogics of the Kindergarten . In his book The Education of Man , Froebel (1887) explains how human development, especially that of children, occurs. He affirms that God is the beginning of all things and that the life of human beings must seek to harmonise itself with Him and with all other aspects of divine creation. The divine nature of everything that exists on earth reveals God's essence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".