View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teacher Caring and Perceptions of In-School Play

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teacher Caring and Perceptions of In-School Play
Language: English
Authors: Sheri L. Burson (ORCID 0000-0002-2409-9266), Darla M. Castelli (ORCID 0000-0002-8862-578X), Heather Erwin (ORCID 0000-0001-5652-9331)
Source: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2025 44(2):306-316.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Attitudes, Elementary School Teachers, Play, Physical Activities, Elementary School Students, Academic Achievement, Caring, Barriers, Social Emotional Learning, Interpersonal Relationship, State Policy, Board of Education Policy
Geographic Terms: Texas
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0168
ISSN: 0273-5024
1543-2769
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to elicit salient information from K-5 teachers regarding their perceptions of in-school play. Play is not goal-focused and can be structured or unstructured, includes high or low physical activity, or utilizes gross or fine motor skills, and children participate in play for enjoyment. Method: K-5 teachers (n = 27) were asked questions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior during focus groups. Theory of Planned Behavior and Caring Theory themes were identified within and across groups with 34 codes across nine themes identified. Results: Teachers thought positively about in-school play. Play supported caring teaching, as relationships could develop and strengthen during playtime. The lack of administrative support and time was discussed as play barriers. Discussion/Conclusion: Perceptions of and desires to provide play conflict with the current educational models. An issue impacting the provision of effective, caring education has been identified. Studies on factors influencing teacher play practices are needed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1468746
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEA48ONBrvQ201HO1ntVeD3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJDM2W78fkhs4rCYdAIBEICBm10QYw7ppICxj7AzCbRinTvx1UIkxWp1CvG_f8xXq53Ly7BPmsogugZwulGuaXnbMqyBw0cSCpqGDEUYznLQTferj_fHuOGUrzuDU6hnIywMuvOkyd5LiYfpwlDJRxFePhTLVatxjhu61KzXhdZ_fNxXnR_etg0AU52jupWnMv0wYHPyKdWS3TEUqtG44dTBb-C9P1eFDOAilLzp
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183920131;0do01apr.25;2025Mar24.06:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183920131-1">Teacher Caring and Perceptions of In-School Play </title> <p>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to elicit salient information from K–5 teachers regarding their perceptions of in-school play. Play is not goal-focused and can be structured or unstructured, includes high or low physical activity, or utilizes gross or fine motor skills, and children participate in play for enjoyment. Method: K–5 teachers (n = 27) were asked questions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior during focus groups. Theory of Planned Behavior and Caring Theory themes were identified within and across groups with 34 codes across nine themes identified. Results: Teachers thought positively about in-school play. Play supported caring teaching, as relationships could develop and strengthen during playtime. The lack of administrative support and time was discussed as play barriers. Discussion/Conclusion: Perceptions of and desires to provide play conflict with the current educational models. An issue impacting the provision of effective, caring education has been identified. Studies on factors influencing teacher play practices are needed.</p> <p>Keywords: play opportunities; physical activity; elementary school; academic achievement; social-emotional; whole child</p> <p>Play is a fundamental part of well-being, freeing us from social norms and conventional expectations while enhancing quality of life ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>]). Development occurs across the lifespan and manifests through planned and spontaneous exploration of the environment as playful interactions, like reimagining the current situation where the student could pretend to be the teacher or coach to step back from the demands and responsibilities of being a student. The right to play is part of childhood ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]), but many U.S. states lack policies supporting that right. The most recent data from the 2019 to 2020 school year indicate that 22 U.S. states had policies focused on providing recess time in all schools, but of those states with recess policies, only nine mandated daily recess ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]). In-school play has been replaced with longer instructional periods to prepare for increases in standardized testing ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]). However, long periods of instructional time may not improve academic achievement, as Godwin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]) found elementary school students given 10 min of instruction were 1.42 times more likely to remain on task compared with those given 30 min of instruction. Thus, it appears that opportunities for play and instruction can and should coexist in schools if the students' ability to remain on task and ultimately improve academic achievement and enhance overall well-being is the goal.</p> <p>This study has merit because play allows children to challenge their bodies and develop strength, build relationships and social skills (e.g., conflict resolution and empathy), and expand their creativity ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref9">63</reflink>]) and has not been shown to detract from academic achievement ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref10">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]). Play is operationally defined as nongoal-oriented activities that can be structured or unstructured, include high or low physical activity (PA), utilize gross or fine motor skills, and are participated in by children for enjoyment ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]). Play is typically accrued during recess in the school setting but may take place during instructional time in the classroom or physical education, during transitions, or in other areas of the school day.</p> <p>In-school play allows students to release built-up energy and improve the cognitive function necessary for learning ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]). Classroom behavior and attention are improved with play breaks ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref18">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref19">46</reflink>]). Even letting the mind wander (imagination and rest), known as "default mode," allows parts of the brain that are highly active during learning to rest and strengthen, leading to improved attention ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]). Further, parts of the brain more active during default mode may lead to improved socioemotional outcomes.</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine teacher perceptions of play (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions to provide opportunities for students to play) and caring for students related to providing opportunities for children to play across the elementary school day.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-2">The Influence of Play on PA and Considerations for Free Play</hd> <p>By definition, play does not require PA; however, 96% of 6- to 11-year-olds surveyed (<emph>n</emph> = 91) reported feeling happy when able to play sports and run outside, and 75% felt sad when unable to engage in those outdoor activities each day ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref21">52</reflink>]). The joy experienced by children during active play may lead to increases in PA achievement during the school day with more play opportunities.</p> <p>While play and PA are related, it is important to ensure children experience the option to play autonomously (e.g., the choice between a structured or adult-led game or free play on a playscape). The lack of autonomous play and the inclusion of goal-focused activities prevent physical education from being considered an in-school play opportunity. Physical education activities are often playful and enjoyable; however, students typically have limited autonomy and may only find ways to spontaneously play while waiting in line, when the teacher is not looking, or by changing game rules ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref22">59</reflink>]). Although 93% of students reported liking their physical education classes during school ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref23">52</reflink>]), children may miss out on other benefits of play if additional opportunities are not provided.</p> <p>Studies have produced conflicting results on the benefits or limitations of structured versus unstructured play, which need to be considered when discussing in-school play opportunities. Some have found that adult-led activities resulted in higher levels of PA achievement, especially among boys, compared with student-led play ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]). Conversely, Hazlehurst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]) determined moderate to vigorous physical activity decreased by 41% with direct supervision compared with no direct supervision during recess, and Varea ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref26">59</reflink>]) noted adult-led play may result in less PA or stifle the development of creativity and prosocial behaviors. The many benefits of play aid in whole child development and education.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-3">Opportunities for Social-Emotional Well-Being Development Through Play</hd> <p>Language, behaviors, and beliefs modeled to children at home and in the classroom are repeated and explored during play ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref27">62</reflink>]). Children are free to build relationships, test and establish boundaries, and express emotions. Contrary to popular belief, the strongest predictor of academic success is self-discipline and regulation, not IQ scores ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]). Further, social competence and attention are also significant predictors of academic success ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]), thus suggesting that greater emphasis on social-emotional learning (SEL) is warranted and teachers need to provide education that is not solely centered on academics ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond scheduled physical education classes and designated recess, academic content could be combined with SEL and pedagogically carried out through free-play periods, semistructured play, or experiential activities. Play can be active or sedentary (e.g., playing make-believe with theater props) and provide distinct developmental and educational benefits ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref34">36</reflink>]). Play helps children develop skills associated with improved academic performance, behavior, and social-emotional well-being ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref39">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]), which is an adaptation of the Social Ecological Framework considering the dynamic interplay of interpersonal, community, and organizational levels as they relate to student level factors ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]), is a framework emphasizing student health with special attention focused on social and emotional climate. The emphasis of the social/emotional climate component of Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child is relationships among people as part of academic success. For students, these relationships can be established with peers, teachers, family members, and community members.</p> <p>One way of promoting these relationships for children is through play. For example, third graders were observed demonstrating trust, positive touch (hugging), encouragement, and both verbal and nonverbal communication with their peers during recess ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref43">59</reflink>]). Similarly, when observing elementary school students during recess, 57% of the groups observed engaged in prosocial behaviors regardless of equipment availability, environment, or supervision ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]). In the traditional U.S. school system, students are afforded the best opportunity to play during recess or free time throughout the day, which must be provided by teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-4">Theoretical Foundations</hd> <p>This study was guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Nodding's Care Theory, both of which have been applied to school-based research.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-5">Theory of Planned Behavior to Assess Teacher Perceptions and Intentions</hd> <p>According to the TPB, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control can influence intentions to change behavior ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]). We argue that a teacher's intention to purposefully integrate "play time" into the curriculum is influenced by their attitudes ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref46">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref47">65</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref48">66</reflink>]), the subjective norms of the school context, and perceived behavioral control over barriers ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]). TPB has been used to determine the predictors of teachers' intentions to implement curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>]), refer students to mental health services ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]), and conduct fitness testing ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>]). Recently, the TPB was used to elicit teachers' attitudes, normative referents, and control beliefs toward the implementation of a recess policy ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]). Conflicting views were expressed, as some believed in the value of a movement break and viewed recess as necessary and developmentally beneficial for children, while others mentioned the need for more time to complete academic requirements ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]). These findings demonstrate a need to further examine teachers' perceptions of recess and other in-school play opportunities.</p> <p>The idea that movement integration infuses PA into academic and SEL activities has been positively perceived by teachers ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref55">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref56">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref57">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref58">68</reflink>]). Subjective norms about having a disciplined and orderly classroom have evolved to more equitable, inclusive, caring, and student-centered approaches, whereby teachers can organically integrate movement when the students need it. The current study adds to the literature by investigating whether teachers might show or foster caring by offering opportunities for children to play and participate in PA.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-6">Building Caring Relationships in Schools</hd> <p>According to Noddings' Care Theory (1992), caring teachers build relationships and rapport with students, and positive relationships are bidirectional, where a teacher occasionally relinquishes control, fosters student ownership, builds community, explores student interests beyond school curricula, and dedicates time to promoting student health. Caring is considered an ethical responsibility of educators, whereby students learn how to become carers by watching their teachers (modeling) and with practice ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref59">45</reflink>]). During play, children practice skills observed and learned in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref60">24</reflink>]), and relationships, both peer-to-peer and student-teacher, may develop. These relationships allow children to improve caring communication through the practice of prosocial skills ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref61">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref62">31</reflink>]) and teachers to learn about their students outside of academics.</p> <p>When observing and interviewing health and physical education teachers, knowing their students ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]), providing praise and feedback, listening and understanding students, and displaying enthusiasm when helping students were major elements of caring teaching ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref64">53</reflink>]). Establishing a caring relationship, practicing the use of intentional dialogue such as positively framed requests, and understanding that caring relationships are reciprocal in nature were instrumental in how teachers and students represented and portrayed care in their classes ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref65">53</reflink>]). Understanding what their students needed at that time (e.g., adjusting a task to incorporate imaginary play) while continuing to facilitate the lesson and avoiding taking public punitive action toward students were found to promote caring during physical education ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref66">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Punitive practices like the removal of recess or other play opportunities by either making a student sit out or removing the opportunity for the entire class still occur in elementary schools. For example, an average of 45% of 1,919 schools surveyed across three school years (from 2008 to 2011) reported recess could be withheld from students as a form of punishment at the teachers' discretion ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref67">57</reflink>]). Further, of 500 teachers surveyed in 2018, 86% reported removing recess one or more times as a form of punishment ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref68">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Often, providing play is up to the teacher's discretion. Some prefer structured, quiet instruction over incorporating play or feel pressure to trade play opportunities for more instructional time to meet testing standards. Teachers' desires to educate autonomously and creatively may conflict with administrative or government expectations ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>]), and it is necessary to discuss in-school play with teachers to understand what influences their play decisions ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>]). The following research questions about in-school play guided this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. What are teacher attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control related to providing student opportunities for play?</item> <p></p> <item> b. How was caring demonstrated and received through the provisions of play in school?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183920131-7">Methodology</hd> <p>After securing Institutional Review Board approval for the research, a qualitative study design employing elicitation focus groups (<emph>n</emph> = 27 teachers) was created to inform the future development of a survey of elementary school teachers. Focus groups were designed to elicit elementary school teachers' salient beliefs regarding in-school play. The findings were used to develop a questionnaire assessing teacher intentions to provide play opportunities, but the focus of this paper is on the discussions with teachers, as understanding their free responses provides valuable information from their unique perspective that should not be glossed over. Focus groups were conducted with full-time, certified elementary school teachers from Central Texas. The additional steps involved in survey development, such as face, content, and criterion validation procedures, are reported elsewhere.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-8">Participants</hd> <p>Purposive sampling was used to invite teachers to participate in focus group interviews using email and social media. Specifically, teachers listed on school district websites with school email address were emailed a focus group invitation, and invitations were posted on social media inviting current Central Texas teachers to participate. The researchers did not have a relationship with any of the participants prior to this study. The study aims and researchers' motivations for studying in-school play were reiterated in the recruitment emails, informed consent, and focus group introductions.</p> <p>Before scheduling participants for data collection, those who responded were asked to complete an eligibility questionnaire and informed consent. Initially, 38 teachers responded to the invitations; however, 11 dropped out due to scheduling conflicts or loss of interest. The study took place during summer break, which made scheduling difficult for some of the respondents. However, those who dropped out opted to remain on an email list to participate in future studies or programs once available. The remaining 27 met the inclusion criteria of being current K–5 teachers in Central Texas, and all participated and received a $25.00 e-gift card after completion. Five focus groups were completed. While a sixth small group (two participants) was scheduled, one participant missed the scheduled time by one hour. Therefore, two one-on-one interviews were conducted with the last two participants.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-9">Focus Group Procedures and Facilitators</hd> <p>Each hour-long discussion was held, audio recorded, and transcribed using Zoom. The focus groups were designed with the Investigate, Discuss, Estimate, and Aggregate protocol ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref71">32</reflink>]) to improve repeatability and transparency and permit participants to discuss initial findings if desired. Open-ended, semistructured questions were created based on findings from a systematic literature review on in-school play opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]) and content experts' recommendations.</p> <p>Each group was facilitated by one interviewer and a co-facilitator. All facilitators had prior training and experience in qualitative research and were conducting or assisting with school-based research projects. During the focus groups, co-facilitators tracked time, recorded field notes, and managed the Zoom chat, allowing the interviewer to dedicate attention to the discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-10">Focus Group Questions</hd> <p>Questions were designed from Fishbein and Ajzen's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>]) elicitation focus group recommendations to assess teachers' perceptions of behavioral outcomes (attitudes), normative referents (subjective norms), and control factors (perceived behavioral control) regarding the provision and utilization of in-school play. Specifically, teachers were asked to discuss the benefits or consequences of in-school play, significant individuals who they believed would support or hinder the provision of in-school play, and factors that would facilitate or prevent play. Sample questions for each construct include:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. <emph>Behavioral Outcomes</emph>—Describe some positive or negative effects of engaging in play during the school day among your students. Are there any differences you observe between before and after play?</item> <p></p> <item> b. <emph>Normative Referents</emph>—Who do you think would support or oppose you providing play opportunities for your students? Consider your administration, colleagues, and students' parents.</item> <p></p> <item> c. <emph>Control Factors</emph>—Describe any factors/circumstances that would make it more difficult for you to provide or utilize in-school play opportunities.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183920131-11">Procedures</hd> <p>Before the focus groups, teachers completed a questionnaire to gain information on demographics, current in-school play practices (e.g., play frequency, types of opportunities provided), and policies that impacted in-school play. This survey tool became an artifact used in the analysis that gave more insight into the participants and allowed the interviewer to focus on the designed discussion questions during the groups.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-12">Participant and School Characteristics</hd> <p>Table 1 displays descriptive statistics of the participating teachers. The mean age was 42 years old, all but three identified as female and White, and half were Hispanic/Latino. Most (<emph>n</emph> = 17) were teaching in lower grade levels (K–2) at the time, but many had experience teaching in multiple grades. The years of experience ranged from 1 to 28 years with more than half the teachers being classified as having high (11–19 years) or expert experience (20–28) compared with the remaining who were classified as having beginner (1–4 years) or moderate experience (7–10 years). The participants were from 18 elementary schools within 6 school districts. According to the Texas Education Agency's 2018–2019 report cards ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref74">55</reflink>]), 16 participants were teaching in high-performing schools versus those in moderate- or low-performing schools (<emph>n</emph> = 6, <emph>n</emph> = 5, respectively).</p> <p>Table 1 Participant Demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Minimum</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Maximum</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Age</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">26</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">56</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.23</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.04</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Years of experience</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.48</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.32</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>n</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">%</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3" colspan="1">Sex</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Female</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">88.9</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Male</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">No response</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" colspan="1">Race</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">White</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">88.9</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">No response</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" colspan="1">Ethnicity</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Hispanic/Latino</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">48.1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Non-Hispanic/Latino</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">48.1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">No response</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="6" colspan="1">Grade teaching</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">K</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">37</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" colspan="1">Experience level</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Beginner</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Moderate</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Experienced</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25.9</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Expert</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">33.3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" colspan="1">School performance</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">High (A–B)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">59.3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Moderate (C)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Low (D–F)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Teachers also reported their district- and school-level play policies and their current play practices (Table 2). Nearly all participants taught in schools with district (<emph>n</emph> = 24) and school (<emph>n</emph> = 25) recess policies, and most reported their district- or school-enacted policies addressed additional play breaks (<emph>n</emph> = 17, <emph>n</emph> = 14, respectively), including classroom, outdoor, or other free-time breaks. Conversely, eight schools did not have a district-level policy, and nine did not have a school-level policy covering additional play breaks. All 18 schools provided daily recess, and all had outdoor areas for recess and play; however, two teachers reported not having a playground at their school. For most, recess transpired once per day (<emph>n</emph> = 17) for 20 (<emph>n</emph> = 10) or 30 min (<emph>n</emph> = 10), and the majority (<emph>n</emph> = 17) provided additional daily play breaks with 11 providing at least two per day.</p> <p>Table 2 Teacher Reports of State and District Level Policy and Teacher Play Practices</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>n</italic></th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Recess policy</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> District</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Yes</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">88.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> No</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> School</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Yes</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">92.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> No</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Recess practices</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Days per week</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">100</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Periods per day</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">63</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">29.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Period length (min)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 15</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 20</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">37</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 25</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 30</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">37</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Varies</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Play break policy</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> District</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Yes</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">63</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> No</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">29.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> School</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Yes</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">51.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> No</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">33.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Play break practices</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Days per week</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 0</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">63</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Breaks per day</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">33.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> 3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Outdoor area</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Yes</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">100</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> No</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Playground</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Yes</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">92.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> No</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183920131-13">Focus Group Debriefs and Interpretations</hd> <p>Immediately after each focus group, the interviewer and co-facilitator debriefed by reviewing notes taken during the groups and discussing their impressions of the teacher's responses. The interviewer read the transcripts and conducted member checks via email within 2 days after each focus group. During member checks, a summary of the talks was provided, and teachers were invited to meet for an additional focus group (if enough participants requested) or one-on-one discussion to explore the questions further or address misinterpretations. Two teachers responded to the email and elaborated on their thoughts, and no participants chose to continue the conversation in additional groups or individual discussions.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-14">Addressing Biases</hd> <p>Several steps were taken throughout the study to avoid researcher bias. The use of the Investigate, Discuss, Estimate, and Aggregate protocol increased transparency and researcher accountability. Only the specified questions addressing the TPB constructs were asked and presented in the same order for each group. During each group, the facilitators aimed to be impartial listeners by abstaining from showing facial expressions or interjecting with their own views, opinions, or information to prevent leading questions and wording bias. Frequent peer debriefs where coding decisions were confirmed or challenged were conducted throughout the coding and analysis process with the co-facilitators and qualified researchers not affiliated with the study to increase research accountability. Reporting decisions were made following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist to enhance study credibility ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-15">Artifacts and Memos</hd> <p>Codes within and across groups were analyzed, and to ensure construct validity and saturation were achieved, artifacts and analytic memos were also analyzed through triangulation ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>]). All decisions made throughout the study were recorded in an audit trail, and analytic memos were maintained during the transcription and coding, which allowed for all decisions to be easily followed. Artifacts included the Texas Education Agency's report cards ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref77">55</reflink>]) and the demographic/background pre-focus group questionnaire. Triangulating these data during the analysis provided a deeper understanding of teachers' perceptions of in-school play by providing more context and decreasing potential researcher bias.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-16">Data Analysis and Interpretation</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics were calculated from the background questionnaire with SPSS (version 25). Thematic findings within and across groups were identified and analyzed using content analysis. Because the focus group questions were designed based on the TPB, a deductive approach was used during the analysis where TPB constructs (behavioral outcomes, normative referents, and control factors) were overarching themes in each group. During the second-cycle coding process, themes of caring associated with the Caring Theory were identified, with themes including caring and caring in schools being identified. All Caring Theory-related codes were derived from Nel Noddings' ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref78">44</reflink>]) requirements for care and recommendations for care in schools. In this study, the results address the TPB-related responses with a focus on the Caring Theory. Discrete phrases aligning with one or more of the constructs were color-coded and labeled, and additional notes were added as needed.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-17">Coding Cycles</hd> <p>Field and debrief notes were reviewed before beginning the first-cycle coding. Field notes recorded by co-facilitators, including when participants nonverbally agreed or disagreed with another participant and other notable reactions (e.g., thumbs up, head nods, facial expressions), were reviewed and included in the analysis to indicate response frequencies. Within each transcript, phrases reflecting the theoretical constructs were identified and color-coded, and analytic memos were recorded as keywords, descriptive phrases, or questions by the interviewer. Many keywords became initial codes, which were input into a matrix in Microsoft Excel. Peer debriefs with the interviewer and co-facilitators were conducted, and an audit trail was maintained throughout this process.</p> <p>During the second-cycle coding, the sort and pile method was utilized to organize initial codes into narrowed codes and subcodes within their respective themes ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref79">43</reflink>]). Initial codes with similar meanings were combined into one code, initial codes with different meanings within the same idea were compiled into codes with subcodes (e.g., subcodes of safety or caring), and initial codes mentioned once were removed. Final codes and subcodes were determined after multiple peer and research team debriefs where full agreement had to be established before moving on to the next coding decisions.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-18">Results</hd> <p>Seventy-two codes were initially identified during first-cycle coding, which decreased to 34 codes across nine themes during second-cycle coding. Over 85% of the codes were identified in the first focus group. Saturation was reached by the fifth group, which was determined during the two one-on-one interviews. Teacher responses were sorted into 34 codes across nine thematic constructs: (a) positive and (b) negative attitudes (behavioral outcomes); (c) positive support, (d) lack of support, and (e) support depends on (normative referents); (f) barriers and (g) facilitators (control factors); (h) caring and (i) caring in schools. Participant names have been replaced with pseudonyms.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-19">Attitudes Toward In-School Play</hd> <p>Teachers discussed the positives and negatives during play, which resulted in seven coded categories (narrowed from 33 initial codes). Codes such as Relationship, SEL, Mental and Physical Health, and Learning Through Play fell under the subtheme Positive Attitudes During Play, while Class Management, SEL, and Ownership fell under the subtheme Positive Attitudes as a Result of Play. Confrontation and Safety were codes representing Negative Attitudes During Play, and Class Management and Time were coded under Negative Attitudes as a Result of Play.</p> <p>All 27 teachers described at least one positive perception of in-school play compared with 13 who discussed any negatives. Mental and physical benefits of play were discussed the most (27 times by 14 teachers across five groups) compared with other benefits. For example, Kate said, "... they do need that time to play... sometimes kids just need a break...," and Carolina said, "... they need the movement. They need the break." Angie mentioned the importance of breaking up sedentary time with play and PA, and many teachers provided active breaks throughout the day. Elizabeth employed active videos (e.g., GoNoodle), dance, and play centers to "... keep their minds free..." from schoolwork for a moment. Vicky shared the importance of integrating movement and play in the classroom to enhance learning, and she described her use of yoga, meditation, and play centers. In addition to a much-needed break, Danica said, "movement is important for the brain," which received head nods from the other teachers in her group.</p> <p>Play breaks were also seen as a way to relieve stress.</p> <p>I think we all need to find ways throughout the day to release some stress and... what they're getting out of that is just a way to unwind and take a little pressure off. Even in kindergarten, I feel like they are under so much pressure. I have to give standardized assessments for kindergarten now. It's crazy. (Lucia)</p> <p>In addition to discussing the benefit of a break, Shirly mentioned a desire for more,</p> <p>One of my friends, they took away recess at her school... because the STARR scores weren't good enough, and so they did extra STARR prep... and I was like, "what are they exactly thinking is going to happen?" Like, this doesn't make any sense. If I had my ideal schedule, I would have three recesses a day. Like a 10-minute, a 10-minute, and a 20-minute... it would be amazing.</p> <p>Positive views of in-school play were evident, but some teachers described negative aspects, such as confrontation, safety, and classroom management. Joshua expressed the need for transition time from "... playing and rambunctious and coming back into a more classroom setting," and Maraya said, "sometimes it [play] tires them out... and that wasn't really the goal or intended purpose... you don't want cranky kids. You want them to feel like they can relax... you got to find a balance." Joshua also addressed concerns regarding social issues on the playground that track into the classroom, "stuff happens at recess or playtime, and sometimes that comes back into the classroom as a negative. Like, now they're not talking, 'she called a what?,' 'I don't know, let's go outside and talk about it.'" While confrontation and safety were a concern for some: "Children are often delightful in play and sometimes they can be very cruel to each other too" (Charlotte); others added a caveat that even negative aspects of play can be positive, "... I don't see a drawback [to play] because they are learning conflict resolution, and they need that" (Isabella). Teacher responses also support the idea that in-school play may be an integral part of a caring educational model.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-20">Caring Through Play</hd> <p>Two Caring Theory themes emerged—caring and caring in Schools. Relationships and Response to Care were identified as codes under Caring, and Affiliative Needs, Student Ownership, Explore, and Teach Caring were codes identified under caring in schools. Play was said to aid in the building of student–student and teacher–student relationships by nine teachers across five groups. When discussing play during recess, Sofia said, "... that's where they get to have their friendships, I guess, solidified... and they get to be friends with not only within our class, but... other kids and not just me as an adult." Similarly, Emma stated, "they have this opportunity to make friends and get to know each other in recess." Many teachers spoke of play as a "great way to build trust and rapport" (Lucy) with their students, which was similarly expressed by Angie and Barb within their groups. Vicky expressed that during play, children are less guarded and may share more with her, which helps her build relationships with them,</p> <p>... that's the time where I really pay attention to the children. That's when I can kind of connect with the kids that might be more shy.... They have kind of their guard down. They're going to tell me more about what's happening with what they're learning, so there's so many advantages to it.</p> <p>Five teachers from three groups discussed the students' response to play in the form of being more ready to learn. Vicky said, "When they get their energy out, they're able to concentrate on... hard tasks that are going to be more mentally challenging," which was echoed by Elizabeth who said,</p> <p>... that [play time] made them feel happy to be there, they feel welcome... and they were like, "we got our free time or free play... whatever you want us to do, we'll do it." So, you have that positivity in the school, like, "okay, now you're ready to learn math," "yes, we're ready, we're fresh, we're ready to focus," and that's something that sells.</p> <p>In addition to caring through relationships and responses to caring, teachers discussed aspects of play that Noddings has recommended is necessary for caring school environments. Two teachers from Group 4 mentioned play can make students feel part of a community and like "... they are part of class" (Maraya). When discussing her more introverted students, Crystal mentioned play can be helpful because "... you can incorporate them into the play or their friends... and it just builds that classroom community." Additionally, two teachers described how play provided a sense of ownership among students, as this is "... my [the students'] time where I get to be in charge" (Taylor). Deanna said play</p> <p>... makes the kids feel... a little bit of ownership in the classroom like they think "oh I'm getting to choose what to do," or "I'm getting to play this thing that I want to play," and "School is awesome and my teacher is so nice because she's letting us do whatever we want to do." So, I think it just makes them feel like they have kind of a say in their day and what they're doing in school.</p> <p>Sofia and Elizabeth both mentioned that during play, their students could be creative and explore things they wanted. Sofia described it as "time off from the learning of the day where they had to do whatever they wanted to do." Of the codes within caring in school, Teach Caring was discussed the most (six teachers, seven times, across four groups). Vicky and Lucy discussed the opportunity to build social skills during play, while Isabella, Grace, and Charlotte mentioned the problem-solving and conflict resolution that takes place in play.</p> <p>... there's constant negotiation in play... "you say you want to be the mom, but I wanted to be the mom. Well, can I be the sister, or do I decide I can't roll with this so then I'm out of the game?"... it's just fascinating to me to watch those kinds of interactions—the negotiation... which is another form of problem-solving, for sure. (Charlotte)</p> <p>According to Vicky, play can foster compassion in addition to social skill-building and problem-solving.</p> <p>They learn to be more compassionate through play, and it gives them opportunities to practice their social-emotional learning techniques, which is very important.... We definitely want to nurture the compassion and understanding with children, and you can do that in play....</p> <p>The ability to organically practice caring themes and social-emotional skills during in-school play allows educators to address the whole child. "... I think you're really building that whole child whenever you are not just focused on only curriculum, but you're also just looking at the child as a whole and what they need to get out of their day" (Sammy). Although participants expressed an overall positive perception of play and discussed many ways play benefits children, they also identified barriers to providing play.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-21">Hindrances to Play and Caring</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to share who they believed supported or opposed the provision and utilization of in-school play and to discuss anything that hindered them from providing and utilizing in-school play opportunities. Teachers expressed perceptions of support from students' parents (seven times/teachers across five groups), from their colleagues (six times/teachers across five groups), and from their current administrators (24 times by eight teachers across six groups). While several teachers shared similar perceptions of administrative support as Danica—"very supported at my school" and Joshua—"I feel very supported by my administration," the lack of support (e.g., administrative, policy, funding) was also identified as a major barrier to in-school play (eight times by six teachers across four groups). For example, Sara discussed the pressure administrators experience to improve test scores, which impacted her provision of play opportunities.</p> <p>... pressure from the top to perform in tests has many times dominated my decision to say "no" to additional playtime because you think "hey, if I can get them to understand one more problem, one more content area, and one more skill, if you can spend those 15-minutes in there pushing that through."</p> <p>Support through policies may influence teacher's play practices as well. Grace, a third-grade teacher who used to teach K, discussed the disparities between grade levels when she expressed the added burden she felt to create play opportunities while pre-K and K teachers were provided with play-based centers in their classrooms by the district.</p> <p>I feel like that is a barrier to play because I don't get that but, in the same school just down the hall in pre-K, they were like here are all the play things so making that jump [from lower to upper grade-levels] was like, "what am I supposed to do?" I have to get really creative, so I feel like that is a barrier for me—I'm supposed to just teach the students academics and play somewhere in there between and figure it out.</p> <p>Ashley echoed similar thoughts when discussing the difficulty with providing "good play" or play that engages students safely and effectively, "... we value the play, we see it, but play isn't necessarily easy for us as teachers. It's not just 'go play.' There's so much that has to go into it... it's a lot of work to get good play with kids...." Support and teacher burden were seen as barriers to in-school play that may stem from issues with time (e.g., schedule, cover content/testing), which was the most discussed barrier (36 times by 18 teachers across six groups).</p> <p>Master daily schedules are organized by subject matter (e.g., math and English language arts), periods for "specials" (e.g., physical education, art, music), and what is likely driving the organizational structure the most, designated time for lunch and recess (e.g., all fourth-grade classes have lunch at the same time, so grade-level teachers can conference). Teachers highlighted inconsistencies between the schedule and reality that posed a challenge.</p> <p>... even though we currently have pretty good support from our administration for recess time, the fact is that the numbers don't add up. So, if I'm adhering to the requirements for the number of math minutes, and the number of language arts minutes, and the number of science minutes, and social studies minutes in the day, there are literally not enough minutes in the day to include even 30-minutes of recess. (Charlotte)</p> <p>... our schedules don't happen in a vacuum, that's our physical schedule that we have to submit to downtown. So, school starts at 7:40 am—that's not taking in time getting in the building and unpacking, and when you go to recess, it says 1:00 pm to 1:30 pm. Okay, well, starting at 12:40—bathroom, water bottle... we're supposed to do this in a vacuum... if you start at 1:00 pm, you get 10-minutes of recess outside because then you have to turn around and head back in.... If we're expected to stick to the minutes, then we're not going to be able to [provide time for] play. It's [play] needed. (Ashley)</p> <p>Marcus mentioned unrealistic transition times made the schedule difficult to adhere to, while Joshua admitted submitting documentation to the district reflecting a schedule that was adhered to, but not reality. According to Emma, the issue with scheduling compounded during testing season, "I tried not to do that [decrease play], but unfortunately, when it was really close, it was like a lot of pressure, and so we had to minimize that time. Not eliminate it completely, but you minimize it." Although barriers to in-school play were discussed more than facilitators (68 times by 24 teachers vs. 27 times by 16 teachers, respectively), the participants provided suggestions for easier facilitation for play and, thus, caring education.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-22">Teacher Suggestions for Facilitators of In-School Play</hd> <p>Teachers discussed support, increasing knowledge and experience, and play-friendly environments as facilitators to in-school play. The idea of support was a recurring theme throughout each focus group. A lack of support, specifically administratively to include not penalizing teachers for providing play and implementing play-friendly policies, was identified as a barrier to in-school play, but support was also one of the biggest facilitators. Despite concerns with scheduling, Sofia and Marcus expressed the importance of recess being part of the master schedule, as it holds them accountable for providing required playtime:</p> <p>They [his students] can tell time, so there's been a couple of times they haven't done a full-length 30-minutes, and they say, "we haven't been out here that long." The kids also can hold you accountable, so I'll do other things, but won't get rid of that [recess]. (Marcus)</p> <p>Policies prohibiting the withholding of recess may also help teachers enforce less punitive disciplinary tactics, "... having the district and your principal support it is important too, and then enforce it. Make sure that they say you can't punish the students by keeping them in and making them do work during recess" (Vicky). In addition to policies, schools that have environments that enable students to explore and be creative, such as gardens (Deanna), makerspaces (Charlotte), and enrichment rooms (Sammy and Shirly) are more equipped to provide play opportunities and likely experience more administrative support for their use.</p> <p>The fear of getting in trouble with one's administration may be felt more with less experience as Charlotte said,</p> <p>... with every passing year, I feel less obligated to adhere exactly to their minute requirements. I've moved more and more toward 'this is what's best for these children in my classroom right now,' and maybe with just a greater sense of freedom in making those choices.</p> <p>However, the creative time and energy it takes to develop and provide additional play opportunities may be taxing. Angie suggested,</p> <p>... they give you your rubric on what you're going to teach for the week... even if they only incorporate two or three ideas per month, I could go in and pick, "Oh, this week we're going to do this one, or I didn't like this one, I really like this other one, so I'm going to do the whole month and do that one." Kind of like align to the TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills—state learning standards], that way, I can pick what I want, but it's right there where I can see it rather than, I learn it and then I forget it, type of thing.</p> <p>Providing teachers with education and tools may relieve the burden on teachers to provide the play they believe is needed for their students.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-23">Discussion</hd> <p>This study sought to answer two questions: (a) What are teacher attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control related to providing student opportunities for play? and (b) How was caring demonstrated and received through the provisions of play in school? As a whole, teachers felt more positively than negatively about play and its benefits. They reiterated the mental and physical health benefits of play, along with SEL outcomes, positive aspects on learning, and forming relationships. This aligns with previous research on teacher perceptions of recess ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]). While classroom management and time often came up as potential negatives of providing play opportunities, teachers felt that administrative support was key to their subjective norms and perceived control of offering play opportunities for their students. The social and emotional development highly influenced teacher attitudes toward providing play and learning they perceived for their students. They were also more supportive of play if they believed it helped student learning, student relationships, and student health.</p> <p>When viewing play from the perspective of caring, the results were overwhelmingly positive, indicating that teachers are caring individuals who value the holistic development of children. They believed play helped students make friends and develop relationships and that students were more accepted into the school and class community as a result of play opportunities. Play allowed students to explore and learn about ownership and personal responsibility. Similar to findings from a previous study on the addition of recess time ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]), teachers from this study indicated that students were more emotionally mature earlier in the school year because they had more opportunities to play, be creative, solve problems, explore, and build their social skills. Of particular importance, they noted students being more compassionate toward peers, which lends itself to Care Theory.</p> <p>Discussions on support for play influencing their decisions is backed by the current literature. When schools implemented longer lunch periods and more opportunities for PA (e.g., additional recess period, classroom breaks) as part of a school wellness program, teachers provided more play opportunities because they no longer feared being penalized ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref84">14</reflink>]). While teachers' opinions of a new district recess policy were mixed, some mentioned the benefit of accountability through policy ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref85">7</reflink>]). In fact, schools in states with recess policies were more likely to provide daily recess compared with those in states without such policies ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ideally, all U.S. states, districts, and schools would implement policies protecting in-school play opportunities through additional or longer recess periods and classroom breaks, but with only nine states requiring daily recess and three states requiring PA throughout the school day ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref87">42</reflink>]), we are far from this goal. Current performativity pressures ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>]) that public school teachers and administrators face and lack of policies prevent teachers from providing and utilizing in-school play opportunities despite teacher understanding of play benefits and the scholarly support for cognitive benefits of social-emotional and physical health among children ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref89">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref90">64</reflink>]). For example, the teacher participants in our study reiterated that time away from academic learning and being involved in the state of play is valuable because it provides a benefit to academic learning as opposed to a separate positive intrinsic value of its own. Thus, it is important to identify natural settings to incorporate play in schools.</p> <p>Classroom PA breaks that offer a productive pause during instruction have been shown to decrease off-task behaviors and are well-received by students and teachers ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref91">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref92">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref93">69</reflink>]). Although traditional physical education games have resulted in more PA achievement ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>]), unstructured periods may be ideal for the incorporation of free or semistructured play in addition to skills-based learning ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref95">59</reflink>]). By allowing a play break or short bouts of play while waiting their turn to practice PA skills, students may reap the benefits of play in addition to the development of physical literacy.</p> <p>Participating teachers shared thoughts and experiences from a large range of years of experience, grade levels taught, and school performance levels, which resulted in rich discussions. Much of the study's strengths are based on transparency through member and peer checks, audit trails, and applying the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref96">56</reflink>]). However, as in most research, there were limitations to this focus group study. Limited generalizability of participant information may have occurred as the responses represented teachers who thought highly of play and were from central Texas; schools may be vastly different in various parts of the country. In addition, the nature of focus groups may increase social desirability bias. However, the group interviews may have produced more discussion among participants, as open discussions were encouraged. Further, participants were provided opportunities to share additional information outside of the group.</p> <hd id="AN0183920131-24">Conclusions</hd> <p>Teachers care about their students and support play opportunities for them. Their attitudes are positive toward play for children; their subjective norms are reliant on parents, other teachers, and administrative support; and their perceived control stems from administrative support, scheduling, and behavior management abilities. Teachers demonstrate caring for students through play because they believe it enhances their physical and mental health, their relationships with others, and their ability to resolve conflict, among others. Play is viewed as valuable and necessary for children, and teachers support it as part of the school curriculum.</p> <p>Castelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8862-578X</p> <p>Erwin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5652-9331</p> <p>Burson (sheri.burson@txstate.edu) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2409-9266</p> <ref id="AN0183920131-25"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref30" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Whole school, whole community, whole child: A collaborative approach to learning and health. ASCD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref94" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Azlan, A.B., Ismail, N., Fauzi, N.F.M., & Talib, R.A. (2021). Playing traditional games vs. free-play during physical education lesson to improve physical activity: A comparison study. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports, 25 (3), 178–187. 10.15561/26649837.2021.0306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref69" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terror of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215–228. 10.1080/0268093022000043065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barros, R.M., Silver, E.J., & Stein, R.E. (2009). School recess and group classroom behavior. Pediatrics, 123 (2), 431–436. 10.1542/peds.2007-2825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref80" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bauml, M., Patton, M.M., & Rhea, D. (2020). A qualitative study of teachers' perceptions of increased recess time on teaching, learning and behavior. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 34 (4), 506–520. 10.1080/02568543.2020.1718808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref49" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beddoes, Z., Barcelona, J.M., & Castelli, D.M. (under review). Teacher implementation profiles: Top-down movement integration mandate. Teaching and Teacher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref53" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brickman, C.W., Ramstetter, C.L., & Durham, R.S. (2022). Recess policy implementation: Beliefs and perceptions of site-based decisions-makers. Journal of School Health, 92 (10), 987–995. 10.1111/josh.13155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref41" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 1643–1647). Elsevier. (Reprinted from Readings on the development of children, pp. 37–42, by M.Gauvain & M.Cole (Eds.), 1993, Freeman).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brusseau, T.A., Kulinna, P.H., Tudor-Locke, C., Ferry, M., van der Mars, H., & Darst, P.W. (2011). Pedometer-determined segmented physical activity patterns of fourth- and fifth-grade children. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8 (2), 279–286. 10.1123/jpah.8.2.279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burson, S.L., & Castelli, D.M. (2022). How elementary in-school play opportunities relate to academic achievement and social-emotional well-being: Systematic review. Journal of School Health, 92 (10), 945–958. 10.1111/josh.13217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calhoun, B., Williams, J., Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., Russell, M.A., & Fishbein, D.H. (2020). Social emotional learning program boosts early social and behavioral skills in low-income urban children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 561196. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.561196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Center on Education Policy (CEP). (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. https://<ulink href="http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=309">www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=309</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Whole school, whole community, whole child (WSCC). Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/wscc/index.htm">www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/wscc/index.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J.F.W., Scott, M., Sutton, M., Cueva, K., Shonkoff, E.T., Goldman, R.E., Margolis, D.N., Potempa, A.E., Fink, K., Gustus, S., & Stock, M. (2021). A mixed-methods evaluation of a school wellness initiative: An examination of longer lunch periods and more physical activity opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 121 (10), 1961–1974. 10.1016/j.jand.2021.03.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coolkens, R., Ward, P., Seghers, J., & Iserbyt, P. (2018). The effects of organized versus supervised recess on elementary school children's participation, physical activity, play, and social behavior: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 15 (10), 747–754. 10.1123/jpah.2017-0591</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council on School Health, Murray, R., Ramstetter, C., Devore, C., Allison, M., Ancona, R., Barnett, S., Gunther, R., Holmes, B.W., Lamont, J., Minier, M., Okamoto, J., Wheeler, L., & Young, T. (2013). The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics, 131 (1), 183–188. 10.1542/peds.2012-2993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dagli, U.Y. (2012). Recess and reading achievement of early childhood students in public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20 (10), Article 2012. 10.14507/epaa.v20n10.2012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dills, A.K, Morgan, H.N., & Rotthoff, K.W. (2011). Recess, physical education, and elementary school student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 30 (5), 889–900. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.04.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth, A.L., & Seligman, M.E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16 (12), 939–944. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elkind, D. (2008). The power of play: Learning what comes naturally. American Journal of Play, 1 (1), 1–6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erwin, H. (2018). Exploring teacher and student perceptions of the impact of two recess periods per day. Texas Education Review, 6 (2), 57–69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erwin, H., Fedewa, A., Wilson, J., & Ahn, S. (2019). The effect of doubling the amount of recess on elementary student disciplinary referrals and achievement over time. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33 (4), 592–609. 10.1080/02568543.2019.1646844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., Singer, D.G., & Berk, L. (2010). Playing around in school: Implications for learning and educational policy. In P.Nathan & A.D.Pellegrini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the development of play (pp. 342–360). Oxford Library of Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fusch, P., Fusch, G.E., & Ness, L.R. (2018). Denzin's paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Social Change, 10 (1), Article 2. 10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao, Z., Chen, S., & Stodden, D.F. (2015). A comparison of children's physical activity levels in physical education, recess, and exergaming. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 12 (3), 349–354. 10.1123/jpah.2013-0392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanz, K., & Rimer, B.K. (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice (2nd ed.). National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health. US Department of Health and Human Services. NIH Pub. No. 05-3896.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Godwin, K.E., Almeda, M.V., Seltman, H., Kai, S., Skerbetz, M.D., Baker, R.S., & Fisher, A.V. (2016). Off-task behavior in elementary school children. Learning and Instruction, 44, 128–143. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, P. (2017). What exactly is play, and why is it such a powerful vehicle for learning?Topics in Language Disorders, 37 (3), 217–228. 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guerin, R.J., Toland, M.D., Okun, A.H., Rojas-Guyler, L., Baker, D.S., & Bernard, A.L. (2019). Using a modified Theory of Planned Behavior to examine teachers' intention to implement a work safety and health curriculum. Journal of School Health, 89 (7), 549–559. 10.1111/josh.12781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hazlehurst, M.F., Wolf, K.L., Simmons, C., Nieto, C., Steiner, M.S., Garrett, K.A., Faino, A.V., Lopez, M.U., Lopez-Toribio, M., & Tandon, P.S. (2023). Physical activity and social interaction assessments in schoolyard settings using the System for Observing Outdoor Play Environments in Neighborhood Schools (SOOPEN). International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 20 (1), Article 94. 10.1186/s12966-023-01483-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemming, V., Burgman, M.A., Hanea, A.M., McBride, M.F., & Wintle, B.C. (2017). A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9 (1), 169–180. 10.1111/2041-210X.12857</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Immordino-Yang, M.H., Christodoulou, J.A., & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness: Implications of the brain's default mode for human development and education. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (4), 352–364. 10.1177/1745691612447308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute of Medicine. (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. The National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jarrett, O.S., Maxwell, D.M., Dickerson, C., Hoge, P., Davies, G., & Yetley, A. (1998). Impact of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. Journal of Educational Research, 92 (2), 121–126. 10.1080/00220679809597584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landreth, G. (2012). Play therapy, the art of relationship (3rd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J.Y. (2014). Predictors of teachers' intention to refer students with ADHD to mental health professionals: Comparison of U.S. and South Korea. School Psychology Quarterly, 29 (4), 385–394. 10.1037/spq0000046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewallen, T.C., Hunt, H., Potts-Datema, W., Zaza, S., & Giles, W. (2015), The whole school, whole community, whole child model: A new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. Journal of School Health, 85 (11), 729–739. 10.1111/josh.12310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michael, R.D., Webster, C.A., Egan, C.A., Nilges, L., Brian, A., Johnson, R., & Carson, R.L. (2019). Facilitators and barriers to movement integration in elementary classrooms: A systematic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 90 (2), 151–162. 10.1080/02701367.2019.1571675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, P., Betancur, L., Coulanges, L., Kammerzell, J., Libertus, M., Bachman, H.J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2022). Time spent playing predicts early reading and math skills through associations with self-regulation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 83, Article 101470. 10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moen, K.M., Westlie, K., Gerdin, G., Smith, W., Linner, S., Philpot, R., Schenker, K., & Larsson, L. (2020). Caring teaching and the complexity of building good relationships as pedagogies for social justice in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 25 (9), 1015–1028. 10.1080/13573322.2019.1683535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association of State Boards of Education. (2022). NASBE state policy database—Health policies. https://statepolicies.nasbe.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neale, J. (2016). Iterative categorization (IC): A systematic technique for analysing qualitative data. Addiction, 111 (6), 1096–1106. 10.1111/add.13314</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education/Nel Noddings. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noddings, N. (2010). Moral education in an age of globalization. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42 (4), 390–396. 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00487.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pellegrini, A.D., & Bohn, C.M. (2005). The role of recess in children's cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34 (1), 13–19. 10.3102/0013189X034001013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rabiner, D.L., Godwin, J., & Dodge, K.A. (2016). Predicting academic achievement and attainment: The contribution of early academic skills, attention difficulties, and social competence. School Psychology Review, 45 (2), 250–267. 10.17105/SPR45-2.250-267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sicart, M. (2014). Play matters. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, S.J., Nicholson, L., Chriqui, J., Turner, L., & Chaloupka, F. (2012). The impact of state laws and district policies on physical education and recess practices in a nationally representative sample of US public elementary schools. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 166 (4), 311–316. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.1133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stapp, A.C., & Karr, J.K. (2018). Effect of recess on fifth grade students time on-task in an elementary classroom. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10 (4), 449–456. 10.26822/iejee.2018438135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart Stanec, A.D. (2009). The theory of planned behavior: Predicting teachers' intentions and behavior during fitness testing. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28 (3), 255–271. 10.1123/jtpe.28.3.255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stracciolini, A., Berbert, L., Nohelty, E., Zwicker, R., Weller, E., Sugimoto, D., Myer, G.D., & Faigenbaum, A.D. (2022). Attitudes and behaviors of physical activity in children: Findings from the Play, Lifestyle & Activity in Youth (PLAY) questionnaire. PM&R, 14 (5), 529–533. 10.1002/pmrj.12634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuhr, P.T., Sutherland, S., & Ward, P. (2011). Care enacted by two elementary physical education teachers and their students. International Journal of Human Movement Science, 5 (1), 5–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stylianou, M., Kulinna, P.H., & Naiman, T. (2016). "...because there's nobody who can just sit that long": Teacher perceptions of classroom-based physical activity and related management issues. European Physical Education Review, 22 (3), 390–408. 10.1177/1356336X15613968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Education Agency. (2019). 2018–19 school report card. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/src/2019/campus.srch.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, L., Chriqui, J.F., & Chaloupka, F.J. (2013). Journal of School Health, 83 (8), 533–541. 10.1111/josh.12062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty series, 1577, 3. United Nations Commission on Human Rights. https://<ulink href="http://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text#">www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text#</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varea, V. (2018). Exploring play in school recess and physical education classes. European Physical Education Review, 24 (2), 194–208. 10.1177/1356336X16679932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vazou, S., Webster, C.A., Stewart, G., Candal, P., Egan, C.A., Pennell, A., & Russ, L.B. (2020). A systematic review and qualitative synthesis resulting in a typology of elementary classroom movement integration interventions. Sports Medicine-Open, 6 (1), Article 218. 10.1186/s40798-019-0218-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voice of Play. (2018). 2018 survey on recess. Voice of Play & International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association. https://voiceofplay.org/2018-survey-recess/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waite, S., Rogers, S., & Evans, J. (2013). Freedom, flow and fairness: Exploring how children develop socially at school through outdoor play. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 13 (3), 255–276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, C.E., & Russ, S.W. (2015). Pretend play, divergent thinking, and math achievement in girls: A longitudinal study. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9 (3), 296–305. 10.1037/a0039006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H., Ge, W., Zhu, C., Sun, Y., & Wei, S. (2022). How pom cheerleading improves the executive function of preschool children: The mediating role of speed and agility. BMC Psychology, 10 (1), Article 234. 10.1186/s40359-022-00944-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, C.A. (2011). Relationships between personal biography and changes in preservice classroom teachers' physical activity promotion competence and attitudes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30 (4), 320–339. 10.1123/jtpe.30.4.320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, C.A., Caputi, P., Perreault, M., Doan, R., Doutis, P., & Weaver, R.G. (2013). Elementary classroom teachers' adoption of physical activity promotion in the context of a statewide policy: An innovation diffusion and socio-ecologic perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32 (4), 419–440. 10.1123/jtpe.32.4.419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, C.A., Russ, L., Vazou, S., Goh, T.L., & Erwin, H. (2015). Integrating movement in academic classrooms: Understanding, applying and advancing the knowledge base. Obesity Reviews, 16 (8), 691–701. 10.1111/obr.12285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, C.A., Zarrett, N., Cook, B.S., Egan, C., Nesbitt, D., & Weaver, R.G. (2017). Movement integration in elementary classrooms: Teacher perceptions and implications for program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 61, 134–143. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiebelhaus, S.E., & Hanson, M.F. (2016). Effects of classroom-based physical activities on off-task behaviors and attention: Kindergarten case study. The Qualitative Report, 21 (8), 1380–1393.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sheri L. Burson; Darla M. Castelli and Heather Erwin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref93"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1468746
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teacher Caring and Perceptions of In-School Play
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sheri+L%2E+Burson%22">Sheri L. Burson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2409-9266">0000-0002-2409-9266</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Darla+M%2E+Castelli%22">Darla M. Castelli</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8862-578X">0000-0002-8862-578X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heather+Erwin%22">Heather Erwin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5652-9331">0000-0001-5652-9331</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Physical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(2):306-316.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caring%22">Caring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Emotional+Learning%22">Social Emotional Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Policy%22">State Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Board+of+Education+Policy%22">Board of Education Policy</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0168
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-5024<br />1543-2769
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to elicit salient information from K-5 teachers regarding their perceptions of in-school play. Play is not goal-focused and can be structured or unstructured, includes high or low physical activity, or utilizes gross or fine motor skills, and children participate in play for enjoyment. Method: K-5 teachers (n = 27) were asked questions based on the Theory of Planned Behavior during focus groups. Theory of Planned Behavior and Caring Theory themes were identified within and across groups with 34 codes across nine themes identified. Results: Teachers thought positively about in-school play. Play supported caring teaching, as relationships could develop and strengthen during playtime. The lack of administrative support and time was discussed as play barriers. Discussion/Conclusion: Perceptions of and desires to provide play conflict with the current educational models. An issue impacting the provision of effective, caring education has been identified. Studies on factors influencing teacher play practices are needed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1468746
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468746
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0168
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 306
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caring
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Emotional Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Board of Education Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teacher Caring and Perceptions of In-School Play
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sheri L. Burson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Darla M. Castelli
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heather Erwin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-5024
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1543-2769
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1