Play in Asian preschools? Mapping a landscape of hindering factors

Abstract

This article investigates the variety of factors that hinder the implementation of play (as defined by western scholars) in Asian preschools. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of policy borrowing, enactment and glocalisation, we analyse three jurisdictions that illustrate distinctive problematics: India, Mainland China and Hong Kong. The methodology involves a bibliographic review. Each jurisdiction is presented as a narrative portrait, including key sociocultural characteristics, features of early childhood education system, role of play in government policies, and teachers’ beliefs and practices pertaining to play. The findings show that the distinctive factors hindering play relate to societal mindsets in India, a lack of curriculum clarity in China, and structural factors and parental pressures in Hong Kong. Common hurdles include a high societal emphasis on academic learning, lack of information on how play should contribute to achieve curriculum outcomes, and insufficient teacher preparation. The authors show that play is neither adequately defined nor justified in some Asian policy frameworks, and argue that play might not be viable in certain preschools (especially in half-day programmes). An alternative glocal notion is proposed – child-led activities – which would be less conceptually problematic and more culturally appropriate. The study highlights the need for the glocalisation of Asian early childhood education systems.

Introduction

This article investigates the variety of factors that hinder the implementation of play in Asian preschools (which normally cater for children aged three to six). In Asia, early childhood education (ECE) has traditionally been a private sector, with most preschools operating independently, and often influenced by the demands of privatisation and marketisation (Gupta, 2014). We present a comparative examination of play in specific Asian jurisdictions, analysing the ongoing tensions among culture and context, government policies advocating for play, and how such policies are interpreted and enacted by teachers on the ground. Examination of this topic is crucial to raise awareness among ECE stakeholders of the challenges that result from policy borrowing, and of the need to critically examine western educational discourses considering local cultures and contexts. Consideration of this topic will also benefit the ECE field by further documenting the diversity and complexity of the world views and educational philosophies that exist in Asia.

Theoretical framework

ECE policy borrowing and enactment: on the need for ‘glocalisation’

As a result of globalisation, ECE policies in Asia have been strongly influenced by policy trends in the western world (e.g. Europe, North America, Australia; Yang et al., 2021). The notion of policy borrowing refers to the process through which countries and jurisdictions intentionally seek to appropriate educational policies designed in other settings and implement them in their local context (Burdett and O’Donnell, 2016). Whilst learning from other policy contexts can be a powerful strategy in the fields of policymaking and comparative education, scholars have recently warned about the problems that arise when policy borrowing takes place with no consideration of the borrowing and lending scenarios, and especially when cultural and contextual differences are underestimated, misunderstood or even ignored (Burdett and O’Donnell, 2016).

Indeed, blind policy borrowing leads to serious challenges and contradictions when it comes to policy enactment, which is understood as the ways in which education professionals put policies into practice in schools (Ball et al., 2011). Because educational systems are sociopolitical systems, educational policies must be interpreted in context, considering the characteristics of the society for which a given policy was designed. In the field of ECE, Birbili and Myrovali (2020) have recently documented the existence of pronounced gaps between curriculum mandates and classroom practices due to teachers’ cultural and personal backgrounds. The authors conclude that narrowing such policy–practice gaps requires blending global trends and teachers’ local realities.

The notion of ‘glocalisation’ was coined to describe the process of the hybridisation of global and local perspectives whilst maintaining the unique contributions of the specific communities involved (Patel and Lynch, 2013). Glocalisation empowers stakeholders to work harmoniously towards a sustainable, just and socially responsible future. In ECE, an increasing number of scholars have encouraged stakeholders to engage in the development of glocalised policies and in the implementation of glocalised practices (e.g. Bautista et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). This requires critical analysis of foreign policy frameworks and the building of third culture spaces in which different sociocultural communities draw on their strengths to form hybrid pedagogical spaces (Gupta, 2018). Adopting glocal approaches in ECE has the potential to eliminate the negative and undesirable consequences of blind policy borrowing. This requires training glocal ECE teachers who are aware of both global issues and the characteristics of their own society (e.g. values, norms, priorities, beliefs), and equipped with knowledge of both international and locally situated practices (Ødegaard, 2015).

Play: a loosely defined buzzword

One clear instance of the influence of globalisation is the widespread presence of the notion of ‘play’ in Asian ECE policy frameworks. Across Asia, play is regarded as an essential component of high-quality care and education programmes for young children (Bautista et al., 2019; Grieshaber, 2016; Gupta, 2014). The strong push towards the adoption of play in Asia is largely due to the extensive body of western research documenting its positive impacts on a variety of developmental and learning outcomes, including physical, socio-emotional, cognitive and academic outcomes (for a recent review, see Lai et al., 2018). Mirroring internationally accepted discourses (e.g. LEGO Foundation and UNICEF, 2018), learning environments that promote playful experiences are understood to be core to effective ECE programmes, and Asian ECE teachers are expected to provide children with play opportunities that are child-centred, process-oriented, engaging, meaningful and joyful.

Despite the centrality of play in Asia, it is striking that the notion of play is rarely defined in official ECE policies (Bautista et al., forthcoming). Indeed, play is one of the most popular terms in contemporary ECE systems, but stakeholders (e.g. curriculum designers, teacher educators, principals, teachers) seldom conceptualise what it means or attempt to identify its basic features or constituents. Western educational researchers concur that play is an elusive and multifaceted construct. Multiple conceptualisations have been proposed in recent decades (for a review, see Burghardt, 2011). In this article, we adopt the conceptualisation proposed by Van Oers (2013), who defines play as a mode of activity with three essential characteristics: (1) children must be engaged voluntarily in the activity, with a high level of involvement; (2) children must enjoy freedom of choice; and (3) children must adhere to rules established by themselves, either explicitly or implicitly (e.g. when to play, who should be involved, the materials/resources to be used, how to organise play).

Scholarly definitions of play are consistent with what contemporary curricula term ‘free play’, understood as activities characterised by children's autonomy, freedom, and lack of structure or goals determined by adults (Wyver et al., 2010). To qualify as (free) play, activities must be fully determined, orchestrated and directed by the child, with no educational focus in mind, either explicit or implicit (Hassinger-Das et al., 2017). In contrast to this vision, due to the growing emphasis on school readiness and accountability (Graue et al., 2018), many ECE systems around the world propose utilising game-like activities (often involving digital technologies) that explicitly target content and/or skills in specific curriculum areas, and are intended to achieve pre-academic or academic learning outcomes or simply to make learning tasks more engaging, motivating and fun for children (Hassinger-Das et al., 2017; Leung et al., 2020). Notions such as ‘guided play’, ‘purposeful play’, ‘playful learning’, ‘eduplay’, ‘structured play’ and ‘teacher-directed play’ reflect this attempt to integrate children's right to play, as recognised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child , with the achievement of pre-academic or even academic learning outcomes (Rao and Li, 2009). However, such hybrid notions are not fully consistent with the scholarly definitions of play, given children's potential lack of intrinsic motivation and freedom of choice, teachers’ high degree of control over activities to ensure children's learning, and the existence of predetermined expectations and rules (Van Oers, 2013).

Several studies have shown that implementing play – as defined by western scholars – in Asian preschools is challenging (e.g. Bautista et al., 2021; Grieshaber, 2016). However, fewer studies have been conducted to document the diversity of factors that hinder play in different Asian jurisdictions, explain the roots of existing challenges, and propose potential solutions (Gupta, 2014). Contributing further evidence is important because whilst Asia tends to be seen by western scholars as a homogenous whole (Luo et al., 2013), the various Asian societies – and their respective ECE systems – have different and often unique characteristics.

Purpose and research question

The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse different types of factors that hinder play in preschools across various Asian ECE systems. We focus on three jurisdictions that illustrate distinctive problematics: India, Mainland China and Hong Kong. Each jurisdiction is presented as a narrative portrait, in which we briefly describe its sociocultural characteristics (e.g. values, norms, priorities and beliefs), the features of the ECE system (e.g. types of programmes, duration, resources), its official curriculum framework (e.g. objectives, goals, expectations), the role of play in the curriculum, and teachers’ beliefs and practices pertaining to play. Note that the article is not intended to offer in-depth analyses of the complex and multilayered historical, sociocultural, political and educational contexts of the chosen jurisdictions, which would require a more extensive review. The research question addressed in this comparative examination is: What are some of the ongoing tensions among culture and context, government ECE policies advocating for play, and teachers’ play-related beliefs and practices in India, Mainland China and Hong Kong?

Methodology

This study is part of a larger bibliographic review of play in Asian preschools. We began by searching for jurisdictions with (1) ECE policies written in English or Chinese and (2) a substantial body of research on preschool teachers’ beliefs and practices related to play. Multiple electronic searches were conducted through EBSCOhost. The keywords included the names of the individual Asian jurisdictions, play, preschool or kindergarten or playschool, and teacher or educator. We focused on empirical studies published in the last 20 years. Only studies written in English were considered. India, Mainland China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan were found to satisfy our two criteria. All of the shortlisted documents were read in detail and summaries highlighting the main findings were produced.

The decisions about the inclusion of each jurisdiction in this article were made based on two criteria: (1) evidence of policy–practice gaps related to play, which was coded when teachers’ classroom pedagogies did not reflect the principles of their official curriculum frameworks, and (2) the factors hindering play should differ across jurisdictions to maximise diversity and variability. Based on these criteria, Japan was excluded due to its overall policy–practice alignment. Singapore was also excluded because, whilst the factors hindering play resembled those identified in Hong Kong (e.g. lack of time, parental pressures), the gaps between policy and practice were less pronounced because Singapore advocates for purposeful play (Bautista et al., 2021), whereas Hong Kong advocates for free play, as discussed below.

Aside from ECE policies, a total of 41 empirical studies were analysed: 7 from India, 11 from Mainland China and 23 from Hong Kong. The studies included in the portraits below were purposefully selected to offer a complete landscape of the findings within each jurisdiction, including both general trends and divergent findings. Because the results across studies within the same jurisdiction tended to be consistent, we gave priority to the most solid and methodologically rigorous studies (i.e. based on the quality of the data collected). Brief narrative summaries are presented. Each portrait concludes by discussing the specific problematics at hand.

Three portraits: distinctive play-related problematics in Asian preschools

India

India is a culturally and linguistically diverse society with strong traditions and cultural heritage. Most of its 1.2 billion population is Hindu. According to Gupta (2013), the Vedic texts and their underlying beliefs form the core of Hinduism, an ancient spiritual philosophy that continues to shape people’s ways of life. The Hindu world view presents ‘an apparent juxtaposition of all dimensions of humanity as spiritualism and materialism, mind and body, morality and physical pleasure, which are all seen to coexist harmoniously in one's life’ (Gupta, 2013: 44). Traditionally, the role of education was conceived as fulfilling the potentialities of individuals through virtues such as control of the mind and senses, purity, meditation, non-violence, self-knowledge, thinking, wisdom and self-study. However, colonial educational policies based on western values were implemented under the rule of the British Empire, whose influence is still noticeable today (Gupta, 2014).

Societal hierarchy in caste groups has existed in India for over 2000 years. The caste system is rarely observed today in large cities, where social stratification is due to financial and education factors, but it still exists in rural areas. As a developing country, India continues to face numerous socio-economic challenges. Poverty rates have been substantially reduced in recent decades, though at the cost of increasing economic inequality. For example, there are pronounced differences between urban and rural areas in the distribution of educational resources and literacy rates among young children (Sriprakash et al., 2020).

ECE is not compulsory in India. Most preschools are private, as publicly funded education starts at the age of five. The government has only recently begun to offer one year of preschool education (for children aged four to five) within public schools (Gupta, 2014). Whilst children are recommended to have two years of preschool education, around half do not attend (Ghosh and Dey, 2020). India offers various types of ECE programmes, including kindergartens (which offer education services), nursery schools (day-care services) and anganwadis (which provide education and care). Affluent parents tend to choose expensive preschools, most of which claim to be built on ‘world-class’ standards and implement child-centred curricula, using English and Hindi as the languages of instruction. This allows parents to show their class–caste distinction, keeps their children away from lower-class communities, and (supposedly) better prepares children for primary school to satisfy hegemonic societal aspirations (Ghosh and Dey, 2020). However, many private preschools are unregulated and of substandard quality, with overly large classes and poorly trained teachers (Gupta, 2014). Furthermore, many parents send their children to private tuition centres, as mainstream education in India is academically competitive and highly stratified (Sriprakash et al., 2020).

The Preschool Curriculum (National Council of Education Research and Training, 2019) advocates for child-centred, holistic and joyful programmes. The Preschool Curriculum establishes three broad goals: (1) children are to maintain good health and well-being; (2) children are to become effective communicators; and (3) children are to become involved learners and connect with their immediate environment. For each goal, a detailed list of learning expectations is provided, including numerous outcomes in academic areas such as literacy (phonological awareness, reading, writing), mathematics (numeracy, geometry) and science (observation, experimentation). For instance, under Goal 2, teachers are suggested to foster children's writing skills by creating a print-rich classroom. The academic focus is therefore strong.

One of the pedagogical approaches proposed is termed ‘play-based pedagogy’. The notion of play is not defined formally in the curriculum, although it is stated that ‘[a]ny pleasure-giving activity is play for them [children] and is central to child's well-being’ (National Council of Education Research and Training, 2019: 58). It is explained that play can be free (initiated by children with minimal supervision) and guided (initiated by teachers with learning objectives in mind), and that the play-based pedagogical approach involves the fusion of both: ‘children shall self-select their play activities and teachers’ role is to detect learning opportunities and make corresponding resources available’ (National Council of Education Research and Training, 2019: 58).

Despite the importance given to play in India's Preschool Curriculum, research suggests that ECE teachers do not sufficiently value its inclusion in preschool programmes. There is widespread agreement that play has no demerits, but it is not considered essential to succeed in India’s hierarchical and competitive society. For example, Hegde and Cassidy (2009) found that the main concern of 12 Mumbai ECE teachers was to teach children how to read and write. They did not believe in free play. Whilst some teachers claimed to implement a play-based curriculum, what they described as play was teacher-directed activities in areas such as music and movement, art and physical education. Similar findings were identified by Gupta (2014) in a study conducted with 20 teachers across four preschools in urban New Delhi. Whilst the teachers commented that play was important, they defined this notion in terms of ‘fun learning’ and described it as a tool to achieve academic outcomes. Teachers’ limited understandings of play were attributed to their little amount of (or even null) training in play pedagogies and child-centred approaches.

Consistent with these beliefs and understandings, instances of free play are rarely observed in Indian preschools. In a study of 108 kindergarten and nursery classrooms, Chopra (2016) found that pedagogical practices tended to be teacher-directed and academically oriented across the board, with a strong focus on rote learning and intensive practice. Teachers relied on worksheets to monitor children's learning and keep parents informed, in view of their high academic expectations. The participating kindergartens offered no free-choice activities. Their schedules were rigid and most of the time was spent completing assignments (e.g. dictation, copying, mathematics problems) and performing memory exercises. Practices were even more academically oriented in the year prior to primary school. Some teachers pushed children for 45–60 minutes to complete tasks, although they knew children's attention span at that age was only around 30 minutes. However, certain differences were found between kindergartens and nurseries. In addition to academic work, nurseries included activities such as storytelling, singing and recitation. Some nurseries offered child-led activities in learning centres (e.g. educational games and puzzles), although for a very limited amount of time, with a maximum of 30 minutes per day. Gupta (2014) documents cases of Indian playschools showcasing more openness to play-based pedagogies within the frame of relatively rigid classroom schedules. However, the author warns that such cases should not be perceived as typical across the country.

Discussion: when social mindsets hinder play

The case of India shows that for play-related policies to be enacted in preschools, society at large (and by extension teachers) need to know and sufficiently value what play may contribute to child development and learning. Despite the emphasis given to play in India's official curriculum, teachers do not think that free play is necessary to satisfy societal expectations. Hence, it is rarely observed on the ground, regardless of the specific type of programme. This happens especially in rural settings, where pedagogical practices are even more academically oriented. In a nutshell, it is futile to mandate teachers to embrace play-based pedagogies when the social expectations for children are different.

One basic step to slowly change societal mindsets would be to conduct context-specific research that examines the impact of play on children, focusing on a wide range of outcomes (Lai et al., 2018). It is notable that the volume of play-impact research in Asia is minimal, with only a handful of small-scale observational studies and interventions (Bautista et al., forthcoming). Given what we know about cross-cultural differences in human learning, and particularly about the unique characteristics and developmental pathways of Asian learners (King and Bernardo, 2016), we argue that Asian ECE systems should examine if what we know about play in the West also applies to Asia. Long-term longitudinal projects that track children who are educated in programmes with different emphases on play (zero, low, medium, high) are essential for societies to assess the extent to which exposure to play in preschool makes a difference in the life of Asian children in the various areas of development (e.g. physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, academic). Without locally grounded research, Asian societies such as India are unlikely to change their deeply rooted views of play as something that is unrelated to learning (Hegde and Cassidy, 2009).

Mainland China

Confucianism (a system of social and ethical philosophy) has played a significant role in shaping Chinese culture. In the pursuit of human self-perfection as the highest purpose in life, Confucianism places great importance on education and learning as vehicles for enhancing social mobility, honouring the family and making social contributions (Yang and Li, 2019). The Confucian principle of knowledge (zhi) is seen as being synonymous with discipline, obedience and effort. These traditional values have steered Chinese parents’ beliefs about learning away from avenues that entail playfulness, enjoyment and freedom. Moreover, the notion of guan (i.e. training children to demonstrate appropriate or expected behaviour) has fostered a top-down, adult-directed learning culture, both within the family and at school (Luo et al., 2013).

Whilst ECE is not compulsory in China, more than 80% of children attend centre-based programmes in kindergartens (which provide education and care services for children aged three to six) and pre-primary schools (which provide education services for children aged five to seven) (Rao et al., 2012). Various programmes are offered (full day, half day, part-time or seasonal), but most children attend full-day kindergartens (8 hours a day, 5 days a week). There are three official policy frameworks that guide the work of ECE teachers. The first is the ‘Early learning and development guidelines for children aged 3–6 years’, which delineate learning and developmental expectations in five key learning areas: physical health, language, social development, aesthetic development and science (Ministry of Education, 2012). The second is the ‘Kindergarten work regulations and procedures’, which are designed to enhance programme quality and regulate the operations of kindergartens (Ministry of Education, 2016). Finally, there is the ‘Outlines for kindergarten education (trial outlines)’, which advocate for a child-centred curriculum and specify the goals and contents of the aforementioned five learning areas (Ministry of Education, 2001; 2012:1).

These three national policy documents value the role of play highly. The ‘guidelines’ (Ministry of Education, 2012) consider children's learning as deriving from play and daily life, emphasise that the unique value of play should be treasured in ECE, and argue that play lays the foundation for academic learning (e.g. mathematics and writing). Similarly, the ‘regulations’ (Ministry of Education, 2016) state that ‘play is the basic activity in kindergartens and education should integrate multiple types of play activities’ (Clause 25) and ‘Kindergarten should adopt play as the major form to facilitate children's holistic development’ (Clause 29). Finally, the ‘trial outlines’ (Ministry of Education, 2001) require kindergartens to embrace play as the main classroom activity, provide time and opportunities for outdoor play, encourage peer play, and solve simple problems through play. Interestingly, these documents do not define the notion of play, elaborate on the different forms of play, or propose effective strategies to foster children's play in preschools. Furthermore, play is portrayed as a vehicle for instilling knowledge and skills in the various learning areas, rather than a basic developmental need of children.

Whilst the structural factors of ECE programmes in China (e.g. sufficient time, spacious indoor and outdoor facilities, a variety of play materials, learning corners) facilitate the inclusion of play in preschools (Rao and Li, 2009; Rao et al., 2012), research has documented important mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and practices. In a qualitative study conducted by Wang and Lam (2017) in an American-style play-based early learning centre in Shenzhen, two teachers expressed their strong convictions regarding the importance of play during individual interviews. They conceptualised play as an enjoyable, creative and intrinsically motivated activity, and explained that children must have freedom, whilst the teacher simply set up the environment, provided materials and established basic rules. However, minimal play-related elements were identified in the classrooms of these teachers, whose pedagogical practices were predominantly content-focused and academically driven. In another study conducted with four kindergartens (two public and two private), Rao and Li (2009) found that the highest proportion of time (up to 51.6%) was spent in direct teaching (whole-class activities), followed by teacher-led playful activities (up to 33%) and, finally, free play (which ranged from 0% to 13.8%). Interestingly, the teachers were found to be helping children achieve academically related outcomes during playtime, including free play. In the same vein, Hu et al. (2015) observed outdoor play activities in 174 Chinese kindergartens. Playtime was found to be minimal, even in outdoor settings, where the most common instructional format was that of whole-class teacher-led activities, as it was indoors.

Discussion: when lack of curriculum clarity hinders play

The case of Mainland China shows that for play-based pedagogies to be adequately enacted on the ground, ECE policies and curriculum frameworks should provide operational definitions of play, identifying its basic requirements or constituents. Such conceptualisations are not provided in Mainland China, as in many other countries worldwide (Bautista et al., forthcoming). The definitions of play will differ across ECE systems, as in the academic literature (Burghardt, 2011), but at least teachers in each context would know what is expected of them. Furthermore, teachers should be adequately trained to enact the play-related policies adopted in their respective systems.

Unlike India, ECE teachers in China highly value and appreciate play. However, what they interpret as instances of play are activities where children have limited freedom, internal agency or capacity to establish their own rules (Van Oers, 2013). These are often large-group activities that are designed to achieve academic outcomes (Yang and Li, 2019). This is paradoxical because ECE programmes in China are conducive to play in terms of duration, physical space and resources. Yet the main hurdle seems to be teachers’ (mis)conceptions of what play is all about. In addition to defining play more precisely, it is important for ECE policies to specify the outcomes that play is expected to achieve (e.g. physical, socio-emotional learning, cognitive, academic) and provide teachers with concrete guidelines to foster such outcomes. Simply stating that play is a strategy for ‘holistic’ development, as most contemporary curricula do, may result in teachers focusing primarily on cognitive and academic outcomes, and overlooking other key developmental and learning outcomes that are non-academic in nature (Lai et al., 2018).

Hong Kong

Hong Kong is one of China's Special Administrative Regions. Although more than 90% of the population is ethnically Chinese, a century of British colonial rule, coupled with a highly cosmopolitan society, has rendered a fusion of cultures. Whilst influenced by western values, most Hong Kong parents also subscribe to traditional Confucian beliefs regarding the importance of knowledge acquisition and academic achievement (Chan, 2016). With a highly competitive and academically oriented educational system, characterised by a potpourri of school offerings of varying quality and competition for limited spaces in top schools (Rao et al., 2018), many parents worry about school readiness and send their children from a very young age to private tuition centres and enrichment classes. Some even send their children to several preschool programmes (Rao et al., 2018). Because ECE in Hong Kong is a private market, parents see themselves in a position to influence how their children should be taught in preschools, often requiring academically oriented curricula and didactic teaching approaches (Rao et al., 2018).

Whilst ECE in Hong Kong is run privately, it is heavily subsidised by the government. The Education Bureau (2017) regulates the sector and supervises the quality of services provided to children, as part of the Kindergarten Education Scheme. The system comprises kindergartens and kindergarten-cum-childcare centres that are operated by non-profit and for-profit organisations. Most programmes are run by local non-profit kindergartens. The rest are run by independent private providers, which typically charge high fees and offer better-resourced facilities. There are three types of ECE programmes: half day, whole day and long whole day (3 hours, 7 hours and 10 hours, respectively). Most children aged from three to six attend half-day programmes (Rao et al., 2018).

Hong Kong's official curriculum is the ‘Kindergarten education curriculum guide’ (Curriculum Development Council, 2017). This guide is followed by most preschools in the city, as it is required to obtain financial subsidies from the government. As a flexible play-based curriculum framework, the guide aims to nurture all-rounded children by fostering ‘balanced development in the domains of ethics, intellect, physique, social skills and aesthetics, thus achieving the goal of whole-person education’ (Curriculum Development Council, 2017: 8). The guide outlines objectives and expectations in six learning areas: language (Chinese and English), early childhood mathematics, nature and living, self and society, arts and creativity, and physical fitness and health. For example, one of the learning expectations in Chinese is to ‘[d]evelop the habit of reading, take the initiative to read, and acquire the basic skills for reading’ (35). In mathematics, children are expected to ‘[d]isplay an interest in numbers and quantities in their environment, and recognise the concepts represented by numbers and mathematical symbols’ (40). Considering the short duration of most ECE programmes (3 hours), one may argue that this curriculum sets highly ambitious pre-academic goals.

Of the three Asian jurisdictions considered in this article, Hong Kong has the only curriculum framework that provides a definition of play. Specifically, the guide advocates for free play:

‘Free play’ is a behavioural activity evoked by the intrinsic motivation of children. It places emphasis on children's autonomy and free participation and children are not limited by the rules or pre-set goals established by adults. During free play, children can choose their own tools, ways to play, playmates and activity area. (119)

Notably, the guide recommends that teachers ‘design a variety of play in line with the curriculum aims and content’ (66), which in our view is contradictory to the notion of free play (Bautista et al., 2021). It is stated that kindergartens shall provide not less than 30 and 50 minutes for free play in half-day and whole-day programmes, respectively (Curriculum Development Council, 2017).

Hong Kong ECE principals and teachers firmly believe that children should learn through play and have happy learning experiences, but they are also fully aware of the many difficulties of implementing play in local preschools. Fung and Cheng (2012) interviewed teachers, principals and parents from 20 kindergartens, focusing on their views on play-based learning. The teachers were concerned about the lack of time for covering curriculum content, as expected by both principals and parents. In contrast, the principals were concerned about teachers’ competence in implementing a play-based curriculum, limited physical space for play, and parents’ overwhelming concerns regarding academic achievement. Finally, the parents had positive attitudes towards learning through play, but very few thought play was helpful in preparing children for primary schooling. In fact, the parents wanted their children to play less and spend more time doing homework (e.g. writing, spelling, dictation), especially from the second year of kindergarten (classes for children aged four to five).

Regarding observational studies, Wu et al. (2018) found that the play practices of eight Hong Kong kindergarten teachers with different profiles consisted mainly of game-like activities. These were generally group-oriented, tightly structured and competitive, and had rules and learning objectives pre-established by the teachers. The teachers were shown videos of instances of free play collected in German kindergartens. Whilst the teachers agreed that the children in the videos were demonstrating meaningful learning, they were also concerned about the feasibility of free play in Hong Kong kindergartens due to time and space constraints, as well as parents’ academic expectations. Similarly, in a study with 35 teachers from three diverse kindergartens, Chan (2016) observed that the participants were not able to offer free-choice activities daily, as they felt an obligation to assign large amounts of homework to satisfy parental demands. Finally, drawing on two prototypical Hong Kong local kindergartens, Wu (2014) found that most teachers scheduled less than 30 minutes per day for playtime on average (some had no specific time assigned for play in their schedules). The children in this study did not engage in authentic free play, but rather in structured child-led activities/games with rules and goals pre-established by the teachers. The children were allowed to engage in these activities only after finishing their designated assignments.

Discussion: when structural factors and parental pressures hinder play

The case of Hong Kong shows that structural factors and parental expectations should be carefully considered to determine the extent to which the enactment of play-related policies is viable in practice. Hong Kong represents a particularly unrealistic case, with most children attending half-day programmes (3 hours) guided by a curriculum that strongly advocates for free play but, at the same time, includes a fair amount of learning objectives and expectations in Chinese, English, mathematics, science and the arts (Curriculum Development Council, 2017), within preschools characterised by their small size and limited resources (Rao et al., 2018). Whilst teachers believe in the importance of play, they fail to put their beliefs into practice simply because ‘That's just impossible in my kindergarten’ (Bautista et al., 2021: 155). Contact time with children is too short; the schedules are too packed; the facilities are too small; and, most importantly, parents have completely different demands.

Hong Kong parents rightly argue that children have plenty of time to play freely throughout the day, and therefore expect time to be spent on activities that lead to visible learning (Rao et al., 2018). In a privatised market where parents see themselves as clients, teachers and principals often struggle to convince parents that at least a sixth of the time must be spent in free play, as requested by local regulations. This situation leads to tremendous pressures for ECE teachers, who, beyond pleasing parents, must follow the established guidelines to fulfil regulatory requirements and ensure financial subsidies. In practice, what teachers typically do is shorten playtime considerably and/or implement group-oriented, tightly structured game-like activities with pre-established learning objectives (Chan, 2016; Wu, 2014; Wu et al., 2018), as teachers do in India and Mainland China. Note that neither of these solutions is aligned with the Hong Kong guide's vision of free play (Curriculum Development Council, 2017).

Conclusion and implications: towards glocalisation

Drawing on frameworks of policy borrowing (Burdett and O’Donnell, 2016), policy enactment (Ball et al., 2011) and glocalisation in ECE (Ødegaard, 2015; Yang et al., 2021), we conclude that there are multiple factors which hinder the implementation of play – as conceptualised in the western literature – in the three jurisdictions considered. The distinctive factors relate to societal mindsets in India, lack of curriculum clarity in China, and structural factors and parental pressures in Hong Kong. Common hurdles include high societal emphasis on academic learning, lack of information on how play should contribute to achieving curriculum outcomes, and insufficient teacher preparation (Gupta, 2014). In sum, whilst teachers’ enactment of play-related policies is similar across the three contexts (i.e. limited or even no opportunities for children's play), the reasons behind this are partly different. More generally, the study illuminates how policy borrowing across global contexts leads to conceptual contradictions and tensions among ECE stakeholders (teachers, principals and parents), and demonstrates how the implementation of policy mandates on play is strongly mediated by culture, context and structural constraints (Yang and Li, 2019; Yelland et al., 2004).

This comparative examination reveals the need to better define, justify and situate the notion of play in each specific Asian ECE system, taking into consideration local characteristics (Grieshaber, 2016). Whilst it is commonly taken for granted that play must be part of preschool education, here we take a bold stand and question this assumption. Considering the short duration of preschool programmes in Asia and the fact that children have ample time to play in other settings (Chan, 2016; Fung and Cheng, 2012), is it always necessary to impose play in curriculum frameworks? To answer this question in a socially responsible manner (Patel and Lynch, 2013), it is vital to take into consideration the structural characteristics of ECE systems and the views of stakeholders, as claimed by glocalisation advocates (Bautista et al., 2021; Ødegaard, 2015; Yang et al., 2021). Giving voice to children to understand their perspectives on different activity types, from teacher-directed tasks to free play, would also be highly relevant.

Play turns into a utopian activity when ECE policies include a focus on academic learning and when teachers feel responsible for preparing children for primary school. If providing children with opportunities for play in preschools is high on the agenda for policymakers, academic objectives and expectations should be reduced (Graue et al., 2018) or even eliminated completely. In Asia, a paradigmatic example of a non-academic curriculum is Japan's national standards for kindergartens (Japan Ministry of Education, 2017). Instead of structuring the curriculum around areas of learning such as language and mathematics, Japan focuses on areas of development (namely, health, human relationships, the environment, language and expression) and does not set expectations related to academic knowledge or skills. This reflects that Japanese society does not see ECE as a period for instruction, but rather for socialisation with others outside of the family circle. Children's agency, responsibility and freedom (and by extension play) have therefore a central role in Japanese preschools.

Other than being difficult to define, play is a heavily loaded notion that may cause resistance (and even rejection) among many Asian parents due to traditional educational philosophies (Luo et al., 2013). Does it make sense to impose notions that are not fully aligned with the values, beliefs and expectations of Asian societies? In order to eventually foster more positive societal attitudes towards play, one strategy proposed in the India portrait is to conduct context-specific research to examine the impact of play on a wide range of child outcomes (e.g. physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, academic), as the volume of impact research across Asia is clearly insufficient (Bautista et al., forthcoming). Locally grounded research endorsing play will be vital to change deeply rooted societal beliefs.

One glocalisation strategy that could solve some of the existing contradictions would be to replace the use of ‘play’ with the notion of ‘child-led activities’. As explained in Bautista et al. (2021), ‘child-led activities’ is a hybrid notion because it is inclusive of different types of activities carried out independently by children (i.e. without the presence of teachers), regardless of the level of freedom, agency and choice given to children (note that these are the three essential characteristics of play, as defined by Van Oers (2013)). Child-led activities would range from highly structured or guided tasks designed to achieve pre-established academic outcomes (e.g. educational games or learning-centre tasks proposed by teachers) to activities in which children play freely (i.e. involving high levels of freedom, agency and choice). In our view, this glocal notion would be more culturally appropriate than play and less problematic from a theoretical standpoint, as different practices would be consistent with policy mandates and accepted as valid. Consequently, this glocal notion would not demand radical changes to beliefs or practices. Policy frameworks advocating for child-led activities would not assume that all ECE programmes will be able to provide the conditions for play, but teachers could be encouraged to offer playtime as far as practicable. Moreover, teachers would be fully aware of the level of ‘playfulness’ offered to children in each situation, being able to distinguish between what is ‘play’ and what is ‘fun work’ (for more details on this glocal notion, see Bautista et al., 2021).

This study contributes to raising awareness among Asian ECE stakeholders of the consequences of globalisation and blind policy borrowing (Burdett and O’Donnell, 2016). We encourage policymakers, school leaders, teacher educators, teachers and parents in Asia to work in harmony in the development of glocalised policies, blending global trends with local cultures to facilitate the implementation of socially situated practices in preschools (Yang and Li, 2019). We also encourage them to consider the voices of children in the building of third play-based pedagogical spaces (Gupta, 2018). This process of mutual transformation between western and Asian world views will create third spaces of curriculum and pedagogical hybridity, where theories and practices from different cultures coexist and transform each other (Ødegaard, 2015; Yang et al., 2021).