What should we call play? Teachers’ discursive negotiation of play’s legitimacy in schools
Background: Play is widely recognised as important for children’s learning, well-being, and development, yet it often occupies an uncertain place in formal schooling. Existing research has largely examined the benefits, barriers, and provision of play, with less attention to the terminology through which play is framed, interpreted, and legitimised in schools. This creates an important gap, as educational language can shape whether play is understood as central, credible, and worth protecting.
Aim: This study explored how teachers across diverse international contexts described, reframed, and contested terminology for play and recess in schools, and what these choices reveal about the negotiation of play’s legitimacy and authenticity within contemporary education systems.
Method: Data were drawn from the broader TOPPING study, an international mixed-methods survey examining teacher perspectives on how play could be better valued and prioritised in schools. This analysis focused on qualitative responses from 135 in-service teachers across 25 countries to one open-ended prompt: “What terminology should be used for play and/or recess in schools, and why?” Responses were analysed using a qualitative thematic approach informed by discursive framing perspectives. Ethical approval was granted by Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol H22401).
Results/findings: Four themes were generated. First, teachers described rebranding play for institutional legitimacy, often aligning play with learning-focused language. Second, some teachers resisted relabelling to preserve play’s intrinsic, child-led, and joyful qualities. Third, teachers drew on competing semantic pathways of legitimisation, including well-being, inquiry, development, agency, movement, and nature. Fourth, terminology functioned as an audience-oriented professional strategy, with language selected to resonate with parents, school leaders, colleagues, and policy environments.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that play is negotiated in schools not only through policy, time, and provision, but also through language. Terminology can make play more institutionally legible, but it can also risk narrowing or instrumentalising what makes play educationally and developmentally valuable. Language should therefore be recognised as an important site of advocacy and tension in efforts to protect play in contemporary schooling.
Implications for children and families: The language schools use to describe play shapes how it is valued. When play is framed as learning, well-being, or development, it may gain greater legitimacy in schools. Understanding this can help you recognise how schools support children’s play and why it matters for their development.
Implications for practitioners: You can use language strategically to advocate for play in schools. Framing play in ways that resonate with families, leaders, and policy priorities may strengthen support, while still protecting play’s child-led, joyful, and developmental qualities.
Keywords: play, recess, terminology, framing, legitimacy, teachers, schools
This presentation relates to the following United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: