View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Exploring Play, Executive Function, and Academic Achievement in Two Title I Kindergartens

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Exploring Play, Executive Function, and Academic Achievement in Two Title I Kindergartens
Language: English
Authors: Allee, Karyn A. (ORCID 0000-0003-0764-4792), Clark, M. H. (ORCID 0000-0002-1959-5767), Roberts, Sherron Killingsworth (ORCID 0000-0002-1340-4333), Hu, BiYing
Source: Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2023 37(2):197-215.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Kindergarten, Young Children, Academic Achievement, Play, Executive Function, Educational Strategies, Low Income Students, Socioeconomic Influences, Achievement Gains, Reading Achievement, Mathematics Achievement, Classroom Environment
Geographic Terms: Florida
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I
DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2022.2139784
ISSN: 0256-8543
2150-2641
Abstract: The role of play in early elementary education (K-2) generates dichotomous opinions, and more research is required to support efficacious pedagogical decision-making. This pilot study explored the effects of pedagogical approaches on Title I kindergarten students' executive function (EF) to test the hypothesis that children, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, will show greater gains in EF, reading, and math achievement when purposeful play is incorporated into learning. Students in the play-based group had statistically significantly stronger EF health than children in the contemporary group per teacher reports, and parents in the contemporary group were more concerned about children's EF skills than those in the play-based group, although this was not statistically significant. Students in the play-based group had greater reading gains than students in the contemporary group. There were no statistically significant differences between classrooms in math growth, but there was a moderate effect size. The greater the teacher's level of concern about students' EF skills, the lower a child's reading and math gains tended to be. Parent observations of children's EF were not correlated to any measure. Despite some study limitations, the findings encourage continued exploration of play-based pedagogy to increase children's EF skills and academic achievement outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1387540
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFsU0sbjZFRk18iUdoHcVcpAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEylqJTorHhl7H6JcAIBEICBmy7FeSGzVxuV-4_-MdSHmczfhkEgbPopfObujadUBZKESimqBQ_VzrkWVAkL4lLvVef4g__JDeRESycnTwfT5W7jACFnXq2xY1535a0Tf4v0y9t0nxwtTkn2CxLyfnkpYcu2LPCZO61kqTDsErZMkwsBJ7888UQzs9fzOUYu1uct9MycKfIqq9sQzG2qFbDL4dXt-u_din7G3nNm
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0162968044;40z01apr.23;2023Apr12.01:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0162968044-1">Exploring Play, Executive Function, and Academic Achievement in Two Title I Kindergartens </title> <p>The role of play in early elementary education (K-2) generates dichotomous opinions, and more research is required to support efficacious pedagogical decision-making. This pilot study explored the effects of pedagogical approaches on Title I kindergarten students' executive function (EF) to test the hypothesis that children, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, will show greater gains in EF, reading, and math achievement when purposeful play is incorporated into learning. Students in the play-based group had statistically significantly stronger EF health than children in the contemporary group per teacher reports, and parents in the contemporary group were more concerned about children's EF skills than those in the play-based group, although this was not statistically significant. Students in the play-based group had greater reading gains than students in the contemporary group. There were no statistically significant differences between classrooms in math growth, but there was a moderate effect size. The greater the teacher's level of concern about students' EF skills, the lower a child's reading and math gains tended to be. Parent observations of children's EF were not correlated to any measure. Despite some study limitations, the findings encourage continued exploration of play-based pedagogy to increase children's EF skills and academic achievement outcomes.</p> <p>Keywords: Academic achievement; executive function; kindergarten; math; play-based pedagogy; quantitative research; reading; Title I</p> <p>The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) have placed increased demands on U.S. schools to demonstrate effectiveness. Subsequently, kindergartens collectively shifted from a play-based to an increasingly didactic environment to address high-stakes testing (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]; Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]). This shift occurred in opposition to research showing that as children construct meaning through play, neural pathways strengthen increasing academic performance, attention, self-regulation, and complex higher order thinking skills (Allee-Herndon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]). Increasingly, the move toward hyper-academic early elementary environs at the expense of play is an international issue (e.g., Birkeland & Sørensen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>]; Kirk & Jay, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]; Moyer, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref6">60</reflink>]), although the pendulum may be shifting (e.g., King & Newstead, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref7">46</reflink>]; Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref8">73</reflink>]; Synodi, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref9">94</reflink>]), which serves to highlight the very different beliefs held about the value of play for learning (e.g., Ridgway et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref10">83</reflink>]). Returning to a more child-centered, play-based approach could significantly support students, especially those experiencing poverty, for greater school success (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). The students who end up losing out on playful learning opportunities in school, however, are commonly children of color, children in low-income or poor households, and children in urban areas (Allee-Herndon, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>This shift away from play purportedly strengthens kindergarten academics in preparation for increased elementary accountability. Kindergarten teachers report amplified entry expectations, demands students read by the end of kindergarten, less time for music and art, fewer opportunities for discovery or play, and increased daily math and reading workbooks (Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]; Repko-Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref14">81</reflink>]). These educational shifts to meet testing expectations and kindergarten academic demands do not align well with playful, constructivist instructional approaches. While play-based instruction shows promise, especially for vulnerable children, its current decline in U.S. schools (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]; Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>]; Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref18">75</reflink>]; Repko-Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref19">81</reflink>]) seems to be in direct contradiction to growing evidence of how play best supports vulnerable learners.</p> <p>Recent neuroeducational findings illuminate how specific conditions, such as chronic, toxic stress children may experience through poverty and other adverse conditions, affect brain and cognitive development impacting academic achievement (Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref20">16</reflink>]; Brisson et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]; Francis et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]; Hughes & Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref23">45</reflink>]; Little, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]; Masten et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]). Executive function (EF), "fundamental to human cognition and achievement," is formally understood to be "the use of (higher) cognitive processes to engage, direct, or coordinate other (lower) cognitive processes, typically in the service of goals" (Doebel, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>], p. 942). EF includes working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, all of which are reasoning skills allowing students to consider consequences, control impulsivity, and regulate emotions (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]; Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref28">15</reflink>]; Blair, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]; Fitzpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]; Raver, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref31">77</reflink>]). EF skills are strongly correlated to school readiness and academic achievement (Moreno et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref32">57</reflink>]), are malleable (Blair, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]), and manifest as following directions, taking turns, engaging in prosocial problem-solving, and sustaining attention on a challenging task (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref34">4</reflink>]). Responding to how EF skills impact children's academic readiness necessitates a translation of cognitive and neuroscientific research into actionable instructional interventions, but empirical research studies concerning instructional strategies designed to mitigate harmful effects on developing brains and promote nurturing, growth-focused learning environments are limited (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). Some research suggests a return to more play-based, constructivist pedagogical approaches could significantly support vulnerable students to experience greater academic success (Blair et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]; Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref37">99</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the purposes of this article, we must clarify two terms we use throughout. In the United States, <emph>Title I</emph> funds are used with the intention to supplement financial resources to support vulnerable learners from poor and low-income households to meet academic standards and expectations. Title I schools tend to have larger populations of children living in low-income circumstances and poverty by federal definition (i.e., ≥ 40% of children are from low-income). Also, unlike in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many countries in Northern Europe, for example, the U.S. kindergarten curriculum all but eschews play, because it is commonly viewed as antithetical to rigor and academically focused learning and accountability (e.g., Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]; Ranz-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref39">76</reflink>]; Repko-Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref40">81</reflink>]). This perceived dichotomy has led to a culture shift in U.S. kindergartens to be more didactic, teacher-directed, and academized. To capture this shift, we use the term <emph>contemporary classroom</emph> throughout this paper to describe the kindergarten environment currently most prevalent in U.S. public schools. Therefore, this study explored the possible relationships between play-based and contemporary pedagogies in two Title I kindergarten classrooms through measures of EF and academic achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-2">Literature review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162968044-3">Poverty, executive function, and cognitive development</hd> <p>Student achievement disparities based on income are evident and substantial as early as kindergarten across all subject areas (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]; Curran, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]; Gilkerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>]; Mazzocco & Claessens, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref44">52</reflink>]; Micalizzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>]; Romeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref46">84</reflink>]; Shonkoff & Phillips, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref47">90</reflink>]). One critical way to explain the income-based kindergarten achievement gap is to understand how adverse childhood experiences, trauma, and chronic toxic stress (e.g., from experiencing extreme poverty) affect the architecture of young children's developing brains (Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>]; Madrick, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]; Roos et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref50">85</reflink>]). Much is known about the physiological causes of prefrontal cortex (PFC) damage, even though research is not exacting on how this damage directly contributes to developmental cognitive differences and school readiness (Ellwood-Lowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]). The PFC, the executive center of the brain, supports higher level cognition such as planning and decision-making, regulates emotions and behaviors, and houses our personality. PFC skills help children meet the demands required of formal schooling, including academic, social, emotional, and behavioral foundations (Bailey & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref52">10</reflink>]), and encompass a broad array of complex processes such as executive function (EF), which is responsible for attention, impulse control, planning and goal setting, decision-making, learning, and memory (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref53">11</reflink>]; Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]; Fitzpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref55">37</reflink>]; Raver, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref56">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>Childhood trauma, toxic stress, and poverty negatively affect the development of critical PFC skills, including EF (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]; Bailey & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]; Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]; Fitzpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]). Neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental research suggests a predictive relationship among EF, academic skill development, and socioeconomic status (SES; Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; Morgan et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref62">59</reflink>]; Shonkoff, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref63">89</reflink>]; Zelazo, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref64">104</reflink>]), although concerns exist about drawing reverse inferences related to SES because multiple conflating factors may contribute to children's cognitive risks (Ellwood-Lowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref65">33</reflink>]). PFC skills are strongly correlated to young children's readiness for school and the demands of structured academics (Bailey & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]; Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]; Blair, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]; Fitzpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]; Raver et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref70">79</reflink>]; Vitiello & Greenfield, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref71">96</reflink>]). PFC skills predict future literacy and numeracy skill development (Gimbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]; Meixner et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref73">55</reflink>]; Morgan et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref74">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref75">58</reflink>]; Nesbitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref76">64</reflink>]; Skibbe et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref77">91</reflink>]) and are also important for developing science conceptual knowledge (Anthony & Ogg, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref78">9</reflink>]; Curran & Kitchin, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>]; Curran, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref80">26</reflink>]). PFC skills however, including EF, are highly malleable and trainable in early childhood (Shonkoff, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref81">89</reflink>]; Zelazo et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref82">105</reflink>]), with early childhood recognized as a critical developmental period (Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref83">15</reflink>]; Blair, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref84">14</reflink>]; Fitzpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref85">37</reflink>]; Zelazo et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref86">105</reflink>]; Zelazo, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref87">104</reflink>]).</p> <p>Delayed development of PFC skills increases affective dysregulation resulting in diminished pro-social behaviors or increased aggressive behaviors (Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref88">15</reflink>]; Raver et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref89">78</reflink>]; Razza et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref90">80</reflink>]). Children from low-income homes, in addition to demonstrating reduced academic readiness, are often less positive about and less willing to engage and persist with the challenges of structured learning (Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref91">15</reflink>]). Therefore, children in poverty or low-income households often experience decreased school readiness as well as decreased prosocial behaviors conducive to learning and academic achievement, related to a lack of cognitive, affective, and behavioral adjustments (Micalizzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref92">56</reflink>]). Often, increased misbehaviors contribute to even further achievement gaps because of disciplinary removal from learning experiences in the classroom (Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref93">7</reflink>]; Bowman-Perrott et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref94">18</reflink>]; McLear et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref95">54</reflink>]). In short, research supports the claim that poverty poses a significant risk to children's well-being, explains much of school readiness and achievement gaps, and is directly related to children's behaviors, approaches to learning, and familial conditions that impede success in school settings.</p> <p>While these associations seem intuitive and logical to many seasoned educators, a need for evidence-based interventions to support children with these challenges remains. Sparse empirical research to date exposes data-driven interventions addressing the effects of poverty on children's PFC skills. Recent comprehensive literature reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies explore the effects of interventions to reduce the effects of poverty on children's learning, behavioral, social-emotional, and academic outcomes (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>]). With further replication and validation, these interventions may lead early childhood policymakers and researchers toward actionable data and research-based strategies that improve academic performance negatively affected by poverty's impact on EF (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>]; Masten et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref98">51</reflink>]; Raver et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref99">78</reflink>]). One intervention used to buffer stress and promote brain-growth is to incorporate a pedagogical approach that considers play to support EF development and learning.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-4">Play, executive function, and learning</hd> <p>Play can be defined as "the work of children," has "behavioral, social, and psychomotor rewards," and is enjoyable (Encyclopedia of Children's Health, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref100">34</reflink>]). Piaget ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref101">69</reflink>]) described play as engaging in an activity or experience "for the pleasure of the activity" (p. 92) without an end goal or benchmark in mind. While lacking universal agreement on a specific definition, play is usually child-directed, often categorized by type, frequently supports developmental growth, and may be social or solitary (Parten, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref102">66</reflink>]; Pellegrini, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref103">67</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref104">92</reflink>]). Regardless of the type, however, play contributes to both overall development and brain development specifically (Lillard et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref105">48</reflink>]; Shonkoff & Phillips, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref106">90</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref107">97</reflink>]), because play meets children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical needs. Teachers can leverage play for children's learning, which is often called guided or purposeful play and falls midway between completely child-directed play and teacher-directed instruction. Purposeful play offers some freedom of choice or discovery aligned to learning goals in classrooms or adult-facilitated environments (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref108">4</reflink>]; Hassinger-Das et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref109">44</reflink>]; Mraz et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref110">61</reflink>]; Weisberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref111">100</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref112">101</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the past three decades, the general view of play in U.S. schools has shifted in the wake of an increased focus on direct instruction, worksheets, scripted curricula, and frequent assessments in an effort to leave no child behind (Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref113">12</reflink>]; Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref114">36</reflink>]; Pyle & Danniels, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref115">72</reflink>]; Ranz-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref116">76</reflink>]; Repko-Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref117">81</reflink>]). Current education climates often view play as mutually exclusive to academic learning; therefore, compared to just 30 years ago, K-3 teachers are discouraged or banned from play, even purposeful play, during the school day (Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref118">12</reflink>]; Pyle & Danniels, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref119">72</reflink>]; Ranz-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref120">76</reflink>]; Repko-Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref121">81</reflink>]). Among play researchers, however, play remains critically important, not just as a vehicle for developing EF, but also to promote social competence, language development, content-related concept building, creativity, empathy, resilience, cooperation, persistence, and intelligence (Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref122">6</reflink>]; Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref123">36</reflink>]; Lillard et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref124">48</reflink>]; Pellegrini, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref125">67</reflink>]; Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref126">99</reflink>]).</p> <p>Playful, constructivist learning environments stimulate the development of young children's cognition, neural plasticity, readiness to work within social norms, and ability to meet desired learning outcomes (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref127">36</reflink>]; Gilbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref128">39</reflink>]; Pellis et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref129">68</reflink>]; Weisberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref130">100</reflink>]). While play-based learning shows promise as an instructional approach for all children, including vulnerable children, current institutional expectations and assessments in U.S. kindergartens do not align with these recommended instructional approaches (Bassok et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref131">12</reflink>]; Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref132">75</reflink>]; Repko-Erwin, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref133">81</reflink>]). At-risk learners experience increased focus on didactic, direct instruction and assessment aligned to academic standards to close achievement gaps. Yet play, especially purposeful play designed and facilitated to support academic, social-emotional, and behavioral learning goals, can teach young children vital skills for success in a structured school environment (Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref134">6</reflink>]). Play holds the potential to be of particular importance for entering kindergartners who are already at a disadvantage (Blair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref135">15</reflink>]; Raver et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref136">78</reflink>]; Sharkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref137">88</reflink>]; Sung, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref138">93</reflink>]).</p> <p>Purposeful play occurs when teachers create intentional time and space conducive to exploration and discovery and facilitate opportunities for children to engage in play that supports and encourages learning and development. During purposeful play, teachers engage reciprocally with children through language interactions, scaffolding concept development, and enhancing the play experience during teachable moments (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref139">5</reflink>]). Purposeful play classrooms encourage children to challenge themselves; reflect on their own understanding; tap into their interests, needs, or talents to make connections; and develop self-efficacy as learners (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref140">5</reflink>]; Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref141">6</reflink>]; Weisberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref142">100</reflink>]). Research also shows that play improves EF and academic achievement over the course of a school year (Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref143">6</reflink>]; Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref144">63</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref145">102</reflink>]).</p> <p>The potential benefits of play-based learning are predicated, however, on highly effective teaching (Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref146">74</reflink>]) that differentiates instruction to inform engaging and authentic learning. Play-based learning also relies on high-quality classroom environments and interactions that are safe, supportive, and responsive with high expectations (Ellwood-Lowe et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref147">33</reflink>]; Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref148">74</reflink>]). While more research is needed, classroom quality regarding play can be measured in both naturalistic and experimental studies (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref149">21</reflink>]; Clayback et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref150">23</reflink>]). Classrooms with greater variability in quality may be unpredictable or stressful and thus result in poor developmental outcomes for children (Clayback et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref151">23</reflink>]; Zinsser et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref152">106</reflink>]), whereas classrooms with greater consistency, especially related to teacher-child interactions, may enhance PFC skills and academic outcomes (Brock & Curby, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref153">20</reflink>]; Clayback et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref154">23</reflink>]; Curby et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref155">25</reflink>]; Rosanbalm & Murray, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref156">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>The National Association for the Education of Young Children ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref157">62</reflink>]) states school readiness, a responsibility of families, communities, and schools, encompasses "physical, cognitive, social, and emotional competence as well as positive attitudes toward learning" (p. 1). When kindergartners lack prior academic knowledge (e.g., phonological awareness, early number sense, shape recognition), and the behaviors, dispositions, and approaches to school that are expected (e.g., following directions, taking turns, persisting in the face of challenge), teachers may have trouble closing these gaps and building necessary skills for children's success. Since high-quality pedagogy and research-based instructional strategies used in an environment of care and support can reduce the stressors on developing minds (Shonkoff, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref158">89</reflink>]), especially important for children living with chronic toxic stress, by infusing purposeful play, classrooms can become emotionally secure and physically safe spaces for brain growth. Growth-promoting classrooms are language-rich, include purposeful play, and allow for authentic discovery and social exploration while teachers scaffold the metacognitive skills that support PFC development. Therefore, with the goal of expanding this research line further, the current study explored how play might support children's outcomes in classroom learning environments by answering the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do pedagogical differences in teachers' uses of play influence executive function as well as reading and math academic achievement among Title I kindergarten students?</item> <p></p> <item> Are there relationships between posttest measures of reading and math academic achievement and parent and teacher posttest measures of students' executive function among kindergartners in a Title I school?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0162968044-5">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162968044-6">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 31 kindergarten students from a schoolwide Title I elementary school in Central Florida with six kindergarten classrooms. Title I status was determined by the percentage of students eligible to receive FRPL, which is frequently used as a proxy for determining students' SES (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref159">95</reflink>]). The Title I school was selected via purposive and convenience sampling (i.e., at least one kindergarten classroom used a play-based approach, school district approved research) after more random selection methods were unsuccessful. Students assigned by the school to the play-based classroom were labeled advanced as determined by an assessment from the core phonics instructional materials that test letter recognition, phoneme blending, sight words, and number recognition (i.e., students with the 20 highest scores). This classroom was selected because it was the only classroom at the school using a play-based pedagogical approach. In light of this known disparity at the onset, we used statistical measures to compensate as described later in the Design and Analysis section. The remaining students were randomly assigned to the five other kindergarten classrooms, and one of these five teachers agreed to be the comparison group. Parents were informed of the study's nature, procedures, benefits, and participant's rights during Curriculum Night. Teachers supported recruitment by sending home packets with consent forms and parent communication at teacher conferences and via class Facebook pages.</p> <p>Parents and educators were informed the study was designed to explore how different teaching approaches might influence learning and development. To blind the conditions as much as possible, participants were not informed that play was a specific research focus. Given the participants' young age, to gain their assent to participate, children were told that the primary investigator (PI) wanted to learn how to best help kindergartners learn and were asked to help by playing some iPad games and by wearing a movement tracker. All adults and children were informed that consent/assent was not required and held no penalty to opt out. Of the 39 potential students who were eligible to participate, 19 students' parents consented with children's verbal assent from the play-based class (68% FRPL) and 12 from the contemporary class (67% FRPL) participated. Students were excluded for declined consent. Demographic characteristics for each sample are represented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant demographics by condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Play-Based Kindergarten <italic>n</italic> = 19</td><td>Contemporary Kindergarten <italic>n</italic> = 12</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female = 11 (57.9%)</td><td>Male = 8 (42.1%)</td><td>Female = 7 (58.3%)</td><td>Male = 5 (41.7%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Race/Ethnicity</td><td>Asian = 1 (5.3%)</td><td>Asian = 0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Hispanic = 5 (26.3%)</td><td>Hispanic = 2 (16.7%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>White = 10 (52.6%)</td><td>White = 9 (75.0%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Black = 3 (15.8%)</td><td>Black = 1 (8.3%)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>ESE</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>19 (100%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>12 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>Gifted/Talented</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>19 (100%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>12 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>504 Plan</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>19 (100%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>12 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>ELL</td><td>1 (5.3%)</td><td>18 (94.7%)</td><td>1 (8.3%)</td><td>11 (91.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>FRPL</td><td>13 (68.4%)</td><td>6 (31.6%)</td><td>8 (66.7%)</td><td>4 (33.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Age at Pretest<sup>a</sup></td><td><italic>M</italic> = 5.64 years Range = 5.11–6.6 years</td><td><italic>M</italic> = 5.52 years Range = 5.10–5.82 years</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ESE = Exceptional Student Education. 504 Plan = Plans schools put in place to support students with disabilities by removing barriers and providing accommodations. ELL = English Language Learners. FRPL = Free or Reduced-Price Lunch, which is often used as a proxy for students' socioeconomic status. <sups>a</sups>By Florida state statute, children must be 5 years old on or before September 1 to be eligible for admission into public school kindergartens. As a result, children can begin as an older 4-year-old who turns 5 on September 1 or an almost 6-year-old who turned 5 September 2 or later the previous year.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-7">Classroom conditions</hd> <p>Both classroom teachers followed the district testing calendar, engaged in direct and small-group instruction, and planned instruction aligned to the state standards and district expectations. Both classrooms also used the same district-supplied curricular resources. The play-based classroom utilized instruction that allowed for choice and flexibility (i.e., choice of center activity, choice of flexible seating). This teacher's daily instructional schedule had 30 minutes dedicated to free choice "play centers" (i.e., block play, puzzles, housekeeping, art), and 30 minutes of "learning centers" (i.e., writing, classroom library, i-Pad games, teacher-created, skill games, math manipulative games) aligned to instructional standards and learning targets in addition to outdoor recess each day. The contemporary classroom teacher used a more didactic, contemporary instructional skills approach with an emphasis on drill and practice with a more austere aesthetic. Play in this classroom typically only included the required daily outdoor recess and "playing" on instructional applications on iPads daily or every other day to meet the district-required i-Ready instructional benchmark of 45 minutes per week.</p> <p>Both teachers used the same district-mandated i-Ready tools for adaptive learning and assessment on iPads (Curriculum Associates, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref160">28</reflink>]) for both reading and math instruction, supplemented with additional core reading (<emph>Wonders</emph>; McGraw Hill, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref161">53</reflink>]) and phonics (<emph>Fundations</emph>; Wilson Language Training, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref162">103</reflink>]) curricula (as cited in Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref163">6</reflink>]). While these core curricula are meant to be used with some teacher flexibility to meet differentiated learner needs, the two teachers' styles were very different. Where the contemporary teacher used a more pedantic, teacher-directed instructional skills approach with an emphasis on drill and practice (e.g., rote repetitions of sight words, worksheets), the play-based teacher was able to fuse a fidelity-based approach to using the curricula <emph>in combination</emph> with play. She also incorporated more "traditional" kindergarten learning experiences, such as shared writing, singing, music and movement, and hands-on learning experiences. To better capture differences in teaching and learning, the PI made one formal classroom observation visit per 9-week grading period and scheduled observations to capture a balance of literacy and math instruction, morning and afternoon visits, and visits both early and later in the week. The PI also conducted additional informal classroom visits. This study did not determine if teaching differences reflected the individual pedagogical approaches, the teachers' attitudes and dispositions, or a combination of these or other factors.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-8">Instrumentation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162968044-9">Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, 2nd edition (BRIEF2)</hd> <p>The BRIEF2 (Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref164">42</reflink>]) was used to measure executive function from both teachers' and parents' perspectives. The BRIEF2 uses 63 items to evaluate nine clinical subfactors, three indices, and/or a global composite score of EF that summarizes and incorporates all clinical scales for children and adolescents (Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref165">42</reflink>]). While we only used the Global Executive Composite (GEC) <emph>T</emph>-scores in our analysis, we obtained evaluations from both parents and teachers to obtain a comprehensive picture of students' abilities and challenges across settings and to ensure no significant differences were present across the three indices for <emph>T</emph>-score validity. Because the BRIEF2 is often used to measure executive <emph>dysfunction</emph>, higher <emph>T</emph>-scores indicate increased EF concerns while lower scores suggest better outcomes for children.</p> <p>On both the Parent and the Teacher Forms, the BRIEF2 inventory has 63 items that assess EF dysfunction on nine clinical scales (i.e., Inhibit, Self-Monitor, Shift, Emotional Control, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Initiate, Task-Monitor, and Organization of Materials), which are divided into three domains (i.e., cognitive, behavioral, and emotional regulation). Questions are designed to identify reporting inconsistencies, negativity, and infrequency. Items ask parents or teachers to select Often, Sometimes, or Never in response to prompts that query if children are easily upset, perseverate on topics, have difficulty with task completion, or have trouble remembering things, for example. GEC scores less than 60 are considered to be within normal limits for children of the same age and gender, whereas other scores indicate mildly elevated concern (60–64), potentially clinically elevated concern (65–69), and clinically elevated concern (≥70; Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref166">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>The BRIEF2 has been shown to be a reliable test as supported by measures of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and interrater reliability. Alpha coefficients indicated strong internal GEC score consistency for both Parent (<emph>r</emph> =.97) and Teacher (<emph>r</emph> =.98) versions of the BRIEF2 (Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref167">42</reflink>]). GEC test-retest reliability for each version was also strong with <emph>r</emph> =.88 for the Parent Form and <emph>r</emph> =.90 for the Teacher Form (Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref168">42</reflink>]). <emph>T-</emph>score stability over test-retest periods show little change with an average <emph>T</emph>-score change on the indices and GEC of 2.34 points for the Parent Screening Form and 2.50 points for the Teacher Screening Form. For typically developing children, interrater reliability was strong between parents' and teachers' scores (<emph>r</emph> =.72) and between parents' scores (<emph>r</emph> =.71), but less stable between teachers' scores (<emph>r</emph> =.57). The BRIEF2 has demonstrated concurrent validity with moderate to strong correlations with the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref169">1</reflink>]), Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, Parent Rating Scales (Reynolds & Kamphaus, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref170">82</reflink>]), Conners Third Edition – Parent Short Form (Conners, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref171">24</reflink>]), and ADHD-Rating Scale-IV (DuPaul et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref172">32</reflink>]) as cited in Gioia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref173">42</reflink>]). For the Parent Screening Form, validity coefficients were between.17 and.75; for the Teacher Screening Form, coefficients ranged from.36 to.80 (Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref174">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-10">i-Ready diagnostic</hd> <p>The i-Ready Diagnostic was used to measure academic achievement in reading and mathematics. While no statewide assessments were required for kindergarten students in Florida, this district used the i-Ready Diagnostic at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to assess students' progress and growth in reading and math. The test is computer-based, adaptive (i.e., the questions will get more difficult if a child continues to answer them correctly or the assessment will end sooner if a child makes sufficient errors), and aligned with state academic standards (Curriculum Associates, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref175">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref176">29</reflink>]; <emph>Every Student Succeeds Act</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref177">35</reflink>]) and i-Ready Instruction, which the district also uses for reading and math instruction.</p> <p>The i-Ready Reading Diagnostic includes questions designed to assess children across six domains (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, high-frequency word recognition, vocabulary, and comprehension of both literary and informational texts). The i-Ready Math Diagnostic math domains are number and operations, algebra and algebraic thinking, measurement and data, and geometry. Student scores fall within placement bands (e.g., emerging kindergarten, late kindergarten, early 1st grade), and students are scored both on the individual domains and are given an overall score. During the 2018–2019 academic year when this study was conducted (Curriculum Associates, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref178">28</reflink>]), the Reading overall score kindergarten placement bands were: Emerging K (100–361), Early K (362–395), Mid K (396–423), and Late K (424–479). For that same year, the Math overall score placement bands for kindergarten were: Emerging K (100–361), Early K (362–372), Mid K (373–411), and Late K (412–454). Questions are read to students and include items that ask students to select the image of the word that rhymes with the prompt word, selecting the correctly spelled word for an image, answering comprehension questions, finding synonyms, identifying shapes, selecting the digital time to match an analog prompt, and solving expressions.</p> <p>The i-Ready Diagnostic test has been shown to be a reliable test as supported by test-retest reliability (<emph>r</emph><subs><emph>median</emph></subs> =.70) and marginal reliability coefficients (<emph>r</emph> =.91; American Institutes for Research, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref179">8</reflink>]). Curriculum Associates ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref180">29</reflink>]) found strong correlations between the Florida Standards Assessments and i-Ready Reading (<emph>n</emph> = 291,000,.83 < <emph>r</emph> <.85) and Math (<emph>n</emph> = 286,000,.87 < <emph>r</emph> <.88) subtests, indicting good predictive validity among elementary school students. Likewise, American Institutes for Research ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref181">8</reflink>]) has provided some evidence of validity by correlating i-Ready Reading scores and Lexile scores (<emph>n</emph> = 840, <emph>r</emph><subs><emph>median</emph></subs> =.88) among 1st-graders. However, neither sample included kindergarten students; therefore, how well these results generalize to this grade level is unclear.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-11">Procedures</hd> <p>Eligible children were assessed at the beginning (August/September 2018) and end of the year (April/May 2019). Classroom teachers administered the i-Ready Diagnostic tests on iPads during small-group instruction, and the school provided the i-Ready Diagnostic Overall Score reports to the PI for analysis. Students are prompted by the assessment with oral directions, pictorial cues, and other supports for non- or early-readers. Paper BRIEF2 surveys were also collected during these windows. Parent surveys were distributed and collected in students' weekly folders alongside graded work, assigned homework, and school communications. Parents were reminded to promptly return completed surveys through e-mail, the class Facebook page, and with additional survey copies sent home as needed. The principal offered each classroom teacher paid release time to complete the Teacher BRIEF2 surveys. Upon retrieval of the surveys, the PI manually entered scores into PARiConnect, an online interface for scoring and data analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-12">Design and analysis</hd> <p>A pretest-posttest, non-equivalent control group design was used to compare the changes in academic achievement between the two classrooms. A mixed design multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to test whether a play-based pedagogy affected EF and academic achievement differently than a contemporary pedagogy. Independent variables were the classroom condition (play-based or contemporary) and time (pretest/posttest). Dependent variables were EF, measured by the parent and teacher versions of the BRIEF2, and academic achievement, measured by i-Ready Reading and Math Overall scores. The covariates were gender and students' free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) eligibility. The final sample size for this analysis was <emph>n</emph> = 28 after excluding students who were missing data for any of the tests. A Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient was run to determine if a relationship existed between any of the posttest measures of EF, reading achievement, and math achievement. All 31 students were included for these analyses.</p> <p>We considered and reported statistics from both hypothesis tests and effect sizes. As the small sample size may under-power the inferential analyses, decisions about model selection were made based on effect sizes. Covariates and interactions were deemed meaningfully significant if effect sizes were moderate or large (i.e.,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> ≥.06). Conclusions about intervention effects were made from hypothesis tests and effect sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162968044-14">The effects of play-based pedagogy</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162968044-15">Statistical assumptions</hd> <p>To ensure that the results from the MANCOVA were valid, the relevant statistical assumptions were examined. Box's <emph>M</emph> (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref182">36</reflink>, 1188.016) = 2.137, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and Levene's test indicated that group variances were not homogeneous. Therefore, Pillai's trace was used to assess multivariate statistics and Welch's analysis of variance (ANOVA) would be used for between-group <emph>post hoc</emph> tests. The assumption of normality was violated only for the Parent BRIEF2 at posttest (<emph>SW</emph>(<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref183">18</reflink>) =.884, <emph>p</emph> =.030) and the Teacher BRIEF2 at posttest (<emph>SW</emph>(<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref184">18</reflink>) =.750, <emph>p</emph> <.001) for the play-based group. Since all other assumptions were met, the researchers presumed that the results from an MANCOVA would be robust against these violations.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-16">Intervention effects</hd> <p>Although neither students' gender, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref185">4</reflink>, 21) =.704, V =.118, <emph>p</emph> =.598, nor FRPL status, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref186">4</reflink>, 21) =.696, V =.117, <emph>p</emph> =.603, were statistically significant, the large effect sizes,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> =.118 and</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> =.117, respectively, suggest that they may contribute to the model. Therefore, we retained the covariates in the analyses because they accounted for much of the variance in the dependent variables and better assessed the unique contributions of each classroom condition. After controlling for the covariates, the multivariate interaction between classroom condition and time was statistically significant and had a large effect size, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref187">4</reflink>, 21) = 4.733, V =.474, <emph>p</emph> =.007,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> =.474. The univariate analyses indicated that for three of the four dependent variables, the change in scores for the play-based class was different from the contemporary class. Table 2 provides the statistics for the interactions, Table 3 provides the statistics for changes over time for each classroom, and Table 4 includes the adjusted means and standard deviations by condition and time.</p> <p>Table 2. Univariate statistics for interactions between classroom condition and time.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Pillai's trace MANCOVA</td></tr><tr><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0005"><graphic href="ujrc_a_2139784_ilm0005.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup xmlns=""><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teacher Observations of Executive Function</td><td>6.725</td><td>.016</td><td>.219</td></tr><tr><td>Reading Achievement Growth</td><td>14.901</td><td>.001</td><td>.383</td></tr><tr><td>Math Achievement Growth</td><td>3.186</td><td>.087</td><td>.117</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Observations of Executive Function</td><td>0.117</td><td>.735</td><td>.005</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 MANCOVA = multiple analysis of covariance. All degrees of freedom (<emph>df</emph>) are 1, 24.</p> <p>Table 3. Main effects and simple main effects for changes over time.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Condition</td><td>Welch's ANOVA</td></tr><tr><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><p id="ilm0006"><graphic href="ujrc_a_2139784_ilm0006.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup xmlns=""><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teacher Screenings of Executive Function</td><td>Contemporary</td><td>1.120</td><td>1, 7</td><td>.325</td><td>.138</td></tr><tr><td>Play-Based</td><td>0.919</td><td>1, 15</td><td>.353</td><td>.058</td></tr><tr><td>Reading Achievement Growth</td><td>Contemporary</td><td>12.753</td><td>1, 7</td><td>.009</td><td>.646</td></tr><tr><td>Play-Based</td><td>47.665</td><td>1, 15</td><td><.001</td><td>.761</td></tr><tr><td>Math Achievement Growth</td><td>Contemporary</td><td>10.914</td><td>1, 7</td><td>.013</td><td>.609</td></tr><tr><td>Play-Based</td><td>32.266</td><td>1, 15</td><td><.001</td><td>.683</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Screenings of Executive Function</td><td>Both</td><td>0.047</td><td>1, 24</td><td>.831</td><td>.002</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 ANCOVA = analysis of covariance.</p> <p>Table 4. Estimated marginal means by condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Contemporary (<italic>n</italic> = 10)</td><td>Play-Based (<italic>n</italic> = 18)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teacher Screenings of Executive Function</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pretest</td><td>60.100</td><td>11.645</td><td>44.389</td><td>5.325</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest</td><td>65.600</td><td>12.065</td><td>43.500</td><td>6.144</td></tr><tr><td>Reading Achievement Growth</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pretest</td><td>350.600</td><td>20.268</td><td>373.333</td><td>38.758</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest</td><td>401.400</td><td>11.562</td><td>474.222</td><td>28.069</td></tr><tr><td>Math Achievement Growth</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pretest</td><td>350.200</td><td>14.937</td><td>365.444</td><td>19.432</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest</td><td>384.800</td><td>14.334</td><td>412.833</td><td>17.872</td></tr><tr><td>Parent Screenings of Executive Function</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pretest</td><td>55.500</td><td>10.371</td><td>48.944</td><td>9.243</td></tr><tr><td>Posttest</td><td>53.500</td><td>12.349</td><td>47.833</td><td>8.573</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Group means are adjusted after controlling for the covariate means in each group (Gender in the Contemporary class, <emph>M</emph> =.60; Gender in Play-Based class, <emph>M</emph> =.61; Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) in the Contemporary class, <emph>M</emph> =.60; and FRPL in Play-Based class, <emph>M</emph> = 72).</p> <p>The interactions for teachers' observations of EF and students' reading achievement had large effect sizes and were statistically significant. The teacher in the contemporary classroom reported an increased level of EF concerns from pretest to posttest, whereas the teacher in the play-based classroom noticed no change in EF concerns from pretest to posttest (see Figure 1). While students in both classrooms significantly increased their reading scores from pretest to posttest, students in the play-based classroom had greater gains than students in the contemporary classroom. Although there was not a <emph>statistically significant</emph> interaction for either math achievement or parents' observations of EF, a moderate effect for math achievement emerged (see Figure 2). Students in both classroom conditions demonstrated an increase in math achievement from pretest to posttest, but the rate of change was greater for students in the play-based classroom than for students in the contemporary classroom. The rate of change for parents' observations of EF did not differ between classrooms, nor was change over time detected in either condition. However, parents in the contemporary classroom reported greater concerns about their children's EF on the BRIEF2 Parent Form than parents of children in the play-based classroom, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref188">1</reflink>, 24) = 2.806, <emph>p</emph> =.107,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> =.105.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Interpretation of estimated marginal means of executive function health from pretest to posttest by reporter and classroom condition.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Interpretation of estimated marginal means of academic growth from pretest to posttest by subject and classroom condition.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-17">Correlations between outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162968044-18">Statistical assumptions</hd> <p>To determine the most appropriate correlation, we tested the assumptions for a Pearson correlation. Although all posttest scores were linearly related to each other, bivariate normality was not evident for four of the six comparisons. Therefore, we used a Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient to test the relative relationships between each posttest.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-19">Relationships</hd> <p>Of the six correlations, three had large effect sizes and were statistically significant. Students who scored higher in reading and/or math achievement also had fewer concerns related to EF as reported by the teachers. Also, students who scored higher in reading tended to score higher in math. No statistically significant correlations between parents' observations of EF and reading scores, math scores, or teachers' observations of executive function were found. See Table 5 for correlations and statistics.</p> <p>Table 5. Correlations between posttest measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. Teacher Screenings of Executive Function</p></list-item></list></td><td>-</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. Reading Achievement</p></list-item></list></td><td>−.650*</td><td>-</td><td /></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. Math Achievement</p></list-item></list></td><td>−.743*</td><td>.780*</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. Parent Screenings of Executive Function</p></list-item></list></td><td>.261</td><td>−.150</td><td>−.076</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>*p</emph> <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-20">Discussion</hd> <p>Since play shows promise to improve children's academic and cognitive outcomes from a neuroeducational perspective (Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref189">63</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref190">102</reflink>]), we sought to investigate how a more play-based pedagogical approach in an otherwise typical Title I kindergarten might support positive outcomes. Because children living in lower economic strata are more likely to be at risk for EF and school readiness delays (Micalizzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref191">56</reflink>]), this study, however small, sought to explore possible differences and associations between EF and academic achievement. To control for the differences in pretest scores between groups, the amount of change in EF and academic scores were analyzed rather than simply comparing posttest results.</p> <p>We hypothesized EF and academic achievement would be stronger in the play-based classroom based on prior research (e.g., Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref192">6</reflink>]; Nelson et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref193">63</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref194">102</reflink>]). The current study found students with lower levels of EF concern (or greater EF health) also demonstrated greater academic growth in the play-based classroom, confirming our hypothesis. These results suggest tangible value in incorporating a play-based instruction alongside or instead of strictly didactic approaches. Our results also confirm emerging evidence linking play-based pedagogy with improved reading and math academic outcomes for vulnerable learners and reinforce existing research suggesting play can be an effective instructional approach for children from low-income homes who may need additional support developing EF skills (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref195">5</reflink>]; Walker et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref196">99</reflink>]). In fact, for students in the contemporary classroom, the adjusted mean level of EF concern grew significantly from pretest to posttest from just under mildly elevated concern (GEC <emph>T</emph>-scores = 60–64) to potentially clinically elevated concern (GEC <emph>T</emph>-scores = 65–69; Gioia et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref197">42</reflink>]). In contrast, the level of EF teacher concern was within normal limits (GEC <emph>T</emph>-scores <60) at both administrations in the play-based classroom.</p> <p>Given prior research literature, we hypothesized strong positive relationships between reading and math achievement posttest and strong negative relationships between EF concern and academic achievement posttest (Gimbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref198">41</reflink>]; Meixner et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref199">55</reflink>]; Morgan et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref200">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref201">58</reflink>]; Nesbitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref202">64</reflink>]; Skibbe et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref203">91</reflink>]). While no statistically significant correlations emerged between parents' observations of EF and posttest academic achievement, a variety of reasons may explain this outcome: parents may not be as well-versed in kindergartners' academic expectations compared to teachers, the small sample size, or preexisting differences in EF. However, the evident relationships between EF health (teacher reported) and academic achievement, as well as the evidence of greater gains and stronger outcomes for students in the play-based classroom over students in the contemporary classroom, are worth consideration. Even after controlling for differences in mean pretest scores by classroom condition, the gains over time and rate of growth remain greater than those in the contemporary class. These results offer an initial step toward linking play-based pedagogy with improved EF and important academic outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-21">Limitations and future studies</hd> <p>While these results are promising, there were several obvious limitations, most notably selection bias and small sample sizes. Because students were not randomly assigned to the treatment condition and were deliberately placed in the play-based class, selection bias must be considered. Therefore, play-based approaches may be confounded with students' abilities. Although a pretest-posttest design and two covariates account for some pretest variation between the groups, these approaches unlikely completely removed selection bias. Therefore, future studies should employ random assignment and a more thorough balance of covariates. One noteworthy challenge of our study's design was finding a teacher using purposeful play whose school district and principal would consent to participation. With fewer teachers incorporating play, this district seemed more willing, perhaps because play was not seen as impeding the academic progress for children deemed more kindergarten ready.</p> <p>This study found statistically significant effects, although smaller sample sizes increase the likelihood of making Type II errors. While we reduced the impact of small sample sizes by interpreting the effect sizes, effects sizes are not meant to generalize about populations. Therefore, future studies, including replications with a larger, more diverse sample size capable of sufficient statistical power to address possible teacher or school effects, will be important for extracting actionable interpretations that contribute to the field. In addition to larger sample sizes with more kindergarten students, classrooms, and schools, future research should work toward refining operational definitions of the construct of play-based versus contemporary classrooms. The district's choice assessments of reading and math academic achievement may also influence the study's outcomes. Exploring various dependent variables may also shed light on the appropriateness of specific measures to assess academic achievement aligned with academic standards.</p> <p>Finally, this study's potential value, no matter how promising, for using a play-based approach in kindergartens is predicated on leveraging high-quality learning environments and interactions (Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref204">74</reflink>]). Yet, this study was limited in measuring teacher and classroom quality. Observational data were not formally included in this analysis, but scales such as School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale (Harms et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref205">43</reflink>]) and Classroom Assessment Scoring System (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref206">71</reflink>]) would better capture environmental factors in each condition. Additionally, Rubin's Play Observation Scale (Rubin, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref207">87</reflink>]) may more accurately identify the nuances of play in current hyper-academic kindergarten cultures. Expanding this research based on the findings of this study, however, is warranted, and, we would argue, important.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>The role and presence of play in early childhood education often generates dichotomous opinions, and more research is required to support efficacious educational decisions (Allee-Herndon et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref208">6</reflink>]; Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref209">73</reflink>]). Research on play must continue to delve deeper with broader samples, more comprehensive designs, and more random groupings. Limitations notwithstanding, our results are compelling in that they reinforce previous empirical evidence that identify relationships between students' academic achievement and EF (Gimbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref210">41</reflink>]; Meixner et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref211">55</reflink>]; Morgan et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref212">58</reflink>]). Similarly, this study points toward the need for research to explore play-based pedagogies as an EF intervention. Quite possibly, the positive outcomes of improving students' EF in Title I schools may likely also reduce inappropriate behaviors, loss of instructional time due to disciplinary actions, improved academic growth rates, and increased soft skills such as resilience, creativity, problem-solving, and decision-making. Exploring ways to further define, connect, and infuse play-based learning approaches for improved EF and academic outcomes should inform and significantly affect Title I schools. Play-based learning allows for more equitable teaching, thus increasing opportunities for our most vulnerable to reach their fullest potential. Instead of perceiving play as antithetical to rigor and academic success, the current study implies that considerations of integrating play to enhance EF and academic growth is imperative as an effective approach for vulnerable children to mitigate harmful effects of poverty and adverse childhood experiences.</p> <p>Further, these findings offer initial important steps to align instructional approaches with developing neuroscience about how poverty and stress, likely more prevalent among students in Title I schools, contribute to educational challenges and opportunities. The findings are especially relevant, given the cumulative number of studies linking EF to children's success, both in short- and long-terms, in literacy and math related endeavors (Gimbert et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref213">41</reflink>]; Meixner et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref214">55</reflink>]; Morgan et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref215">58</reflink>]; Nesbitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref216">64</reflink>]; Skibbe et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref217">91</reflink>]) as well as positive outcomes affecting children long into adulthood (Chetty et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref218">22</reflink>]; Dodge et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref219">30</reflink>]). Additionally, these findings generally support a return to once-established approaches that integrate purposeful play into the daily activities of kindergartners (Allee-Herndon & Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref220">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite educators' best intentions and increased focus on rigorous instruction and standardized outcomes, persistent achievement gaps have not been reversed in recent decades. In fact, as classrooms have shifted away from purposeful play, constructivist approaches, and best practices grounded in Social Learning Theory (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref221">70</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref222">98</reflink>]), some disturbing, unintended consequences have increased, including negative behaviors and exclusionary discipline for very young children, that are likely backlash from the lack of play-based, naturalistic pedagogical approaches. The time appears ripe to combine neurological brain discoveries with research-based experiences that include play-based instruction to improve learning, behavioral climates, and academic outcomes for all children, especially those in Title I schools.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-23">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank Dr. Martha Lue Stewart for making our research stronger by engaging in intellectual discussions. Above all, we are deeply appreciative of all participants, including the principal, teachers, children, and their families.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-24">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0162968044-25">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Karyn Allee, upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0162968044-26"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref169" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Karyn Allee has changed institutional affiliation since completing this research and is now affiliated with Mercer University.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0162968044-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1991). Child behavior checklist. Burlington (Vt), 7, 371 – 392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allee-Herndon, K. A. (2019). Kindergarten is not child's play: An exploration of pedagogical approaches related to learning in a play-based and a contemporary classroom at a Title I elementary school [ Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 6448. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/6448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref220" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2018). Neuroeducation and early elementary teaching: Retrospective innovation for promoting growth with students living in poverty. International Journal of the Whole Child, 3 (2), 4 – 18. https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/ijwc/article/view/1136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2019). Poverty, self-regulation and executive function, and learning in K-2 classrooms: A systematic literature review of current empirical research. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33 (3), 345 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1613273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Allee-Herndon, K. A., & Roberts, S. K. (2021). The power of purposeful play in primary grades: Adjusting pedagogy for children's needs and academic gains. Journal of Education, 201 (1), 54 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420903272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref122" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Allee-Herndon, K. A., Roberts, S. K., Hu, B. Y., Clark, M. H., & Stewart, M. L. (2022). Let's talk play! Exploring the possible benefits of play-based pedagogy on language and literacy learning in Title I kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50 (1), 119 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01141-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref93" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Allee-Herndon, K. A., Taylor, D. D., & Roberts, S. K. (2019). Putting play in its place: Presenting a continuum to decrease mental health referrals and increase purposeful play in classrooms. International Journal of Play, 8 (2), 186 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2019.1643993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref179" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> American Institutes for Research. (2020). i-Ready® diagnostic. https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/screening/tool/?id=7534542c4f422f85</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref78" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Anthony, C. J., & Ogg, J. (2020). Executive function, learning-related behaviors, and science growth from kindergarten to fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (8), 1563 – 1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, R., & Jones, S. M. (2019). An integrated model of regulation for applied settings. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22 (1), 2 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00288-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, R., Meland, E. A., Brion-Meisels, G., & Jones, S. M. (2019). Getting developmental science back into schools: Can what we know about self-regulation help change how we think about "No Excuses"? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1885. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open, 1 (4), 1 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415616358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birkeland, S., & Sørensen, H. V. (2021). Time regulation as institutional condition for children's outdoor play and cultural formation in kindergarten. International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development, 111 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72595-2_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blair, C. (2016). Developmental science and executive function. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25 (1), 3 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415622634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66 (1), 711 – 731. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2016). Poverty, stress, and brain development: New directions for prevention and intervention. Academic Pediatrics, 16 (3), S30 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blair, C., Raver, C. C., & Ansari, D. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLoS ONE, 9 (11), e112393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowman-Perrott, L., Benz, M. R., Hsu, H. Y., Kwok, O. M., Eisterhold, L. A., & Zhang, D. (2013). Patterns and predictors of disciplinary exclusion over time: An analysis of the SEELS national data set. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21 (2), 83 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426611407501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brisson, D., McCune, S., Wilson, J. H., Speer, S. R., McCrae, J. S., & Hoops Calhoun, K. (2020). A systematic review of the association between poverty and biomarkers of toxic stress. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 17 (6), 696 – 713. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1769786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brock, L. L., & Curby, T. W. (2014). Emotional support consistency and teacher–child relationships forecast social competence and problem behaviors in prekindergarten and kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 25 (5), 661 – 680.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D., & Aber, J. L. (2010). Improving classroom quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4rs program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (1), 153 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Yagan, D. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from project star. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, 126 (4), 1593 – 1660. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clayback, K. A., Wang, H. W., Domingo, M., Hemmeter, M. L., & Barton, E. (2022, February). Examining Program-level Behavior Policies to Promote Equity in Early Childhood: An Example from Tennessee. Poster presented at the biennial Conference on Research Innovation in Early Intervention in San Diego, California. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19735.44968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conners, C. K. (2008). Conners 3rd Edition: Manual: Multi-Health Systems. MHS Assessments.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Abry, T. (2013). Do emotional support and classroom organization earlier in the year set the stage for higher quality instruction? Journal of School Psychology, 51 (5), 557 – 569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, F. C. (2017). Income-based disparities in early elementary school science achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 118 (2), 207 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1086/694218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, F. C., & Kitchin, J. (2019). Early elementary science instruction: Does more time on science or science topics/skills predict science achievement in the early grades? AERA Open, 5 (3), 233285841986108. https://doi.org/10.1177/233285841986108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curriculum Associates. (2018). i-Ready scale score placement tables (2018-2019 school year). https://<ulink href="http://www.esboces.org/cms/lib/NY01914091/Centricity/Domain/533/iready-placement-tables-2018-2019.pdf">www.esboces.org/cms/lib/NY01914091/Centricity/Domain/533/iready-placement-tables-2018-2019.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curriculum Associates. (2020). i-Ready diagnostic and Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) linking study overview. https://<ulink href="http://www.curriculumassociates.com/-/media/mainsite/files/i-ready/linking-studies/iready-diagnostic-assessments-linking-study-overview-florida-2020.pdf?la=en&hash=6F65D84B0A896CBECE03C8B93E05CE61">www.curriculumassociates.com/-/media/mainsite/files/i-ready/linking-studies/iready-diagnostic-assessments-linking-study-overview-florida-2020.pdf?la=en&hash=6F65D84B0A896CBECE03C8B93E05CE61</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodge, K. A., Bierman, K. L., Cole, J. D., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (2015). Impact of early intervention on psychopathology, crime, and well-being at age 25. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 172 (1), 59 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13060786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doebel, S. (2020). Rethinking executive function and its development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 (4), 942 – 956. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuPaul, G. J., Power, T. J., Anastopoulos, A. D., & Reid, R. (1998). ADHD Rating Scale—IV: Checklists, norms, and clinical interpretation. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellwood-Lowe, M. E., Sacchet, M. D., & Gotlib, I. H. (2016). The application of neuroimaging to social inequity and language disparity: A cautionary examination. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, December (22), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Encyclopedia of Children's Health. (n.d.). Play. Encyclopedia of Children's Health. <ulink href="http://www.healthofchildren.com/P/Play.html">http://www.healthofchildren.com/P/Play.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177">www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Singer, D., & Berk, L. E. (2011). Playing around in school: Implications for learning and educational policy. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of play (pp. 341 – 363). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzpatrick, C., McKinnon, R. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2014). Do preschool executive function skills explain the school readiness gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children? Learning and Instruction, 30 (April), 25 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, L., DePriest, K., Wilson, M., & Gross, D. (2018). Child poverty, toxic stress, and social determinants of health: Screening and care coordination. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 23 (3), 2. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No03Man02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, J. L., Harte, H. A., & Patrick, C. (2011). Purposeful play leads to school readiness. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 39 (1), 29 – 37. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Warren, S. F., Oller, D. K., Russo, R., & Vohr, B. (2018). Language experience in the second year of life and language outcomes in late childhood. Pediatrics, 142 (4), e20174276. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-4276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gimbert, F., Camos, V., Gentaz, E., & Mazens, K. (2019). What predicts mathematics achievement? Developmental change in 5- and 7-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 178 (February), 104 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.09.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2015). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF2) professional manual. PAR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harms, T., Jacobs, E. V., & White, D. R. (2013). School-age care environment rating scale, updated edition (SACERS). Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hassinger Das, B., Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). The case of brain science and guided play: A developing story. Young Children, 72 (2), 45 – 50. https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/may2017/case-brain-science-guided-play">www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/may2017/case-brain-science-guided-play</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, M., & Tucker, W. (2018). Poverty as an adverse childhood experience. North Carolina Medical Journal, 79 (2), 124 – 126. https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.2.124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, P., & Newstead, S. (Eds.). (2021). Play across childhood: International perspectives on diverse contexts of play. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72461-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, G., & Jay, J. (2018). Supporting kindergarten children's social and emotional development: Examining the synergetic role of environments, play, and relationships. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32 (4), 472 – 485. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2018.1495671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. Psychology Bulletin, 139 (1), 1 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, M. (2017). Rural and socioeconomic gaps in executive function skills in early elementary school: Nationally representative evidence from the ECLS-K:2011. Educational Researcher, 46 (2), 103 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17698700</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madrick, J. (2020). Invisible Americans: The tragic cost of child poverty. Alfred A. Knopf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten, A. S., Herbers, J. E., Desjardins, C. D., Cutuli, J. J., McCormick, C. M., Sapienza, J. K., Long, J. D., & Zelazo, P. D. (2012). Executive function skills and school success in young children experiencing homelessness. Educational Researcher, 41 (9), 375 – 384. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzocco, M., & Claessens, A. (2020). Introduction to the special issue: Parents supporting early mathematical thinking. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 50, 1 – 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGraw Hill. (n.d). Literacy curriculum for elementary: Wonders. https://<ulink href="http://www.mheducation.com/prek-12/program/microsites/MKTSP-BGA07M0/wonders.html">www.mheducation.com/prek-12/program/microsites/MKTSP-BGA07M0/wonders.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLear, C., Trentacosta, C. J., & Smith Darden, J. (2016). Child self-regulation, parental secure base scripts, and at-risk kindergartners' academic achievement. Early Education and Development, 27 (4), 440 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1091972</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meixner, J. M., Warner, G. J., Lensing, N., Schiefele, U., & Elsner, B. (2019). The relationship between executive functions and reading comprehension in primary-school students: A cross-lagged-panel analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46 (1), 62 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Micalizzi, L., Brick, L. A., Flom, M., Ganiban, J. M., & Saudino, K. J. (2019). Effects of socioeconomic status and executive function on school readiness across levels of household chaos. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47 (2), 331 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreno, A. J., Shwayder, I., & Friedman, I. D. (2017). The function of executive function: Everyday manifestations of regulated thinking in preschool settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45 (2), 143 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0777-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Wang, Y., Hillemeier, M. M., Oh, Y., & Maczuga, S. (2019). Executive function deficits in kindergarten predict repeated academic difficulties across elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46 (1), 20 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.06.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, P. L., Li, H., Farkas, G., Cook, M., Pun, W. H., & Hillemeier, M. M. (2017). Executive functioning deficits increase kindergarten children's risk for reading and mathematics difficulties in first grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 23 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moyer, J. (2001). The child-centered kindergarten: A position paper: Association for childhood education international. Childhood Education, 77 (3), 161 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2001.10522153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mraz, K., Porcelli, A., & Tyler, C. (2016). Purposeful play: A teacher's guide to igniting deep and joyful learning across the day. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Where we stand on school readiness. https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Readiness%201.pdf">www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Readiness%201.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, J. M., James, T. D., Chevalier, N., Clark, C. A. C., & Espy, K. A. (2016). Structure, measurement, and development of preschool executive function. In J. A. Griffin, P. McCardle, & L. S. Freund (Eds.), Executive function in preschool-age children: Integrating measurement, neurodevelopment, and translational research (pp. 65 – 89). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14797-004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nesbitt, K. T., Fuhs, M. W., & Farran, D. C. (2019). Stability and instability in the co-development of mathematics, executive function skills, and visual-motor integration from prekindergarten to first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46 (1), 262 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 101, Stat. 1425. (2002). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1">www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27 (3), 243 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellegrini, A. D. (2013). Play. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 2. Self and other (pp. 276 – 299). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellis, S. M., Pellis, V. C., & Himmler, B. T. (2014). How play makes for a more adaptable brain: A comparative and neural perspective. American Journal of Play, 7 (1), 73 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. W.W. Norton & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1977). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle, A., DeLuca, C., Danniels, E., & Wickstrom, H. (2020). A model for assessment in play-based kindergarten education. American Educational Research Journal, 57 (6), 2251 – 2292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220908800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle, A., Poliszczuk, D., & Danniels, E. (2018). The challenges of promoting literacy integration within a play-based learning kindergarten program: Teacher perspectives and implementation. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32 (2), 219 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1416006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ranz-Smith, D. J. (2007). Teacher perception of play: In leaving no child behind are teachers leaving childhood behind? Early Education and Development, 18 (2), 271 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701280425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75 (2), 346 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00676.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raver, C. C., Blair, C., Willoughby, M., & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2013). Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds' executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, 49 (2), 292 – 304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP's impact on low-income preschoolers' preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82 (1), 362 – 378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2015). Are approaches to learning in kindergarten associated with academic and social competence similarly? Child & Youth Care Forum, 44 (6), 757 – 776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-015-9307-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Repko-Erwin, M. E. (2017). Was kindergarten left behind? Examining US kindergarten as the new first grade in the wake of "No Child Left Behind. Global Education Review, 4 (2), 58 – 74. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1155001.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior assessment system for children (2nd ed.). American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ridgway, A., Quiñones, G., & Li, L. (2020). Peer play and relationships in early childhood: International research perspectives (International perspectives on early childhood education and development, 30) (1st ed.). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romeo, R. R., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S. T., West, M. R., Mackey, A. P., Rowe, M. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Beyond the 30-million-word gap: Children's conversational exposure is associated with language-related brain function. Psychological Science, 29 (5), 700 – 710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617742725</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roos, L. L., Wall-Wieler, E., & Lee, J. B. (2019). Poverty and early childhood outcomes. Pediatrics, 143 (6), e20183426. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosanbalm, K. D., & Murray, D. W. (2017). Promoting Self-Regulation in the First Five Years: A Practice Brief. OPRE Brief 2017-79. Administration for Children & Families.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, K. H. (2001). The play observation scale (POS) – Revised. University of Maryland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharkins, K. A., Leger, S. E., & Ernest, J. M. (2017). Examining effects of poverty, maternal depression, and children's self-regulation abilities on the development of language and cognition in early childhood: An early head start perspective. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45 (4), 493 – 498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0787-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shonkoff, J. P. (2011). Protecting brains, not simply stimulating minds. Science, 333 (6045), 982 – 983. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skibbe, L. E., Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., & Morrison, F. J. (2019). Self-regulation and the development of literacy and language achievement from preschool through second grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46 (1), 240 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, P. K. (2005). Social and pretend play in children. In A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The nature of play: Great apes and humans (pp. 173 – 209). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung, Y. (2014). Differential effect of social-emotional behaviors on academic achievement of language-minority students. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43 (3), 393 – 416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9245-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Synodi, E. (2010). Play in the kindergarten: The case of Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Japan. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18 (3), 185 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2010.521299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2018, November 7). Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies (Title I, Part A). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vitiello, V. E., & Greenfield, D. B. (2017). Executive function and approaches to learning in predicting school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 53, 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5 (3), 6 – 18. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040505036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, v. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79 – 91). Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, S., Fleer, M., Veresov, N., & Duhn, I. (2020). Enhancing executive function through imaginary play: A promising new practice principle. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 45 (2), 114 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120918502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7 (2), 104 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play: Principles and practices. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25 (3), 177 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416645512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, R. E., Thibodeau-Nielsen, R. B., Palermo, F., & Mikulski, A. M. (2021). Engagement in social pretend play predicts preschoolers' executive function gains across the school year. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 56, 103 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson Language Training. (n.d). Fundations Wilson Language Basics: Building a foundation for reading and spelling in grades K-3. https://<ulink href="http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/programs/fundations/">www.wilsonlanguage.com/programs/fundations/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zelazo, P. D. (2015). Executive function: Reflection, iterative reprocessing, complexity, and the developing brain. Developmental Review, 38 (December), 55 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). Executive function: Implications for education. NCER 2017-2000. National Center for Education Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zinsser, K. M., Bailey, C. S., Curby, T. W., Denham, S. A., & Bassett, H. H. (2013). Exploring the predictable classroom: Preschool teacher stress, emotional supportiveness, and students' social-emotional behavior in private and Head Start classrooms. Dialog, 16 (2), 90 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Karyn A. Allee; M. H. Clark; Sherron Killingsworth Roberts and BiYing Hu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref222"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1387540
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Exploring Play, Executive Function, and Academic Achievement in Two Title I Kindergartens
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Allee%2C+Karyn+A%2E%22">Allee, Karyn A.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-4792">0000-0003-0764-4792</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Clark%2C+M%2E+H%2E%22">Clark, M. H.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1959-5767">0000-0002-1959-5767</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Roberts%2C+Sherron+Killingsworth%22">Roberts, Sherron Killingsworth</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-4333">0000-0002-1340-4333</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hu%2C+BiYing%22">Hu, BiYing</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Childhood+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Childhood Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 37(2):197-215.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Executive+Function%22">Executive Function</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Students%22">Low Income Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Influences%22">Socioeconomic Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Achievement%22">Mathematics Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida%22">Florida</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Elementary+and+Secondary+Education+Act+Title+I%22">Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02568543.2022.2139784
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0256-8543<br />2150-2641
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The role of play in early elementary education (K-2) generates dichotomous opinions, and more research is required to support efficacious pedagogical decision-making. This pilot study explored the effects of pedagogical approaches on Title I kindergarten students' executive function (EF) to test the hypothesis that children, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, will show greater gains in EF, reading, and math achievement when purposeful play is incorporated into learning. Students in the play-based group had statistically significantly stronger EF health than children in the contemporary group per teacher reports, and parents in the contemporary group were more concerned about children's EF skills than those in the play-based group, although this was not statistically significant. Students in the play-based group had greater reading gains than students in the contemporary group. There were no statistically significant differences between classrooms in math growth, but there was a moderate effect size. The greater the teacher's level of concern about students' EF skills, the lower a child's reading and math gains tended to be. Parent observations of children's EF were not correlated to any measure. Despite some study limitations, the findings encourage continued exploration of play-based pedagogy to increase children's EF skills and academic achievement outcomes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1387540
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1387540
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02568543.2022.2139784
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 197
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Executive Function
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Exploring Play, Executive Function, and Academic Achievement in Two Title I Kindergartens
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Allee, Karyn A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Clark, M. H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Roberts, Sherron Killingsworth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hu, BiYing
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0256-8543
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2150-2641
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Childhood Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1