Play–literacy interface in childhood education: Across the scales of time and space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Play has been widely examined and viewed as an effective pedagogy to promote children's literacy development. While current research has identified various benefits associated with play, discrepancies still exist regarding what type of play could be more effective, for example, home play or school play. This could further lead to an outcome-oriented, positivist perception of play as a designed intervention that risks neglecting children's agency in creating, negotiating, and interpreting their play activities. In this conceptual article, we explore the theoretical affordance of the concept of temporal and spatial scales to rethink children's play as a dynamic, multilayered flow of meaning-making and negotiation across time and space. We discuss how using the lens of scales, play can be analyzed as actions, processes, and contexts. The methodological and pedagogical implications of scales are also illustrated for practical applications in research and education on play-based literacy learning. Finally, this article aims to draw researchers and educators’ attention to the complexity and diversity of play, as well as children's agency in (re)constructing playfulness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".