#020 Play Is Not the Opposite of Structure

ISSUE #020 | PLAY IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF STRUCTURE

THE INSIGHT

There is another assumption about play that deserves some pushback:

If an adult structures it, teaches during it, or has a goal for it, then it somehow stops being real play.

The research I read this week does not support such a simple divide.

The choice is not:

adult-controlled instruction OR completely free play.

There is a large space in between.

And that space may be where some of the best teaching happens.

WHAT THE RESEARCH TELLS US

The material on Mildred Parten describes educators using children's stages of social play to scaffold development. Teachers can create structured environments, select materials, ask open-ended questions, and guide children toward a learning goal while still supporting play and children's intrinsic motivation.

Leggett and Newman raise the same issue from another direction. They review evidence suggesting that play-based learning is most effective when it is interactive—when children engage with people, materials, and environments and when educators know how to support that interaction. They also challenge the idea that an educator's proper role during play is simply to stand back and supervise.

That does not mean adults should constantly direct children's play.

It means adult involvement and child agency are not automatically opposites.

WHY IT MATTERS

This distinction matters because adults can get structure wrong in both directions.

Too much adult control can remove the problem solving from the child.

The adult gives every instruction, fixes every mistake, decides every move, and solves every disagreement.

The child may complete the activity without having to do much thinking.

But the opposite extreme has problems too.

If adults believe all good play must be completely hands-off, they may miss chances to extend a child's thinking, introduce a challenge, change a rule, ask a useful question, or help a child enter a social interaction.

The real issue is not:

“Was an adult involved?”

It is:

“Did the adult's involvement leave important work for the child to do?”

RESEARCH FOR THE REAL WORLD

Imagine a simple movement game.

Children have to move across the room but freeze when they hear a signal.

An adult could control every step:

“Go there. Stop. Stand here. Now do this.”

There is very little left for the child to manage.

Or the adult could establish the rule, let the children play, and then change one condition:

“Now the signal means something different.”

The adult created the structure.

But the children still have to remember, inhibit the old response, adapt, and act.

That is the distinction.

Good structure creates the problem. It does not always solve the problem for the child.

That applies far beyond movement games.

Adults can arrange the environment, set boundaries, provide materials, introduce challenges, ask questions, and step in when needed without taking ownership of the experience away from the child.

THE BIGGER QUESTION

How much structure helps children do harder developmental work—and at what point does adult help begin doing that work for them?

SOURCE

American College of Education. (2026). EC6023 theories and foundations of child development: Module 9. Mildred Parten [Presentation]. Canvas.

Leggett, N., & Newman, L. (2017). Play: Challenging educators’ beliefs about play in the indoor and outdoor environment. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.1.03