Norwegian ECEC teachers’ play practices with children aged 2-3 years

ABSTRACT

The present study investigated early childhood education and care (ECEC) teachers’ practices when they were engaged in play with children aged 2 to 3 years old. Both in a Norwegian context and internationally the number of younger children in ECEC is increasing, and there is a need for knowledge about what characterizes high-quality teacher practices at play. Eighteen Norwegian teachers were filmed interacting with small groups of two to five children (a total of 54 children, mean age 35 months; range 28–41). The video data (18 play situations; total = 4 hours) were transcribed and analyzed using the theoretical framework of intersubjective space, emphasizing the sematic, material, and social dimensions of the interactions between the teachers and children. The results revealed three main characteristics of teachers’ play practices: creating connections in play, expanding play, and regulating play. Although these characteristics were present in many observations, our analysis revealed variations between the teachers in terms of creating connections, expanding, and regulating. These variations can be decisive for play to continue, develop, or end. In addition, teachers’ practices appear to be crucial for some children to be included in play.

KEYWORDS:

• Play
• play practice
• ECEC teachers’
• interactions
• intersubjective space

Introduction

Play is an essential part of young children’s lives. Although the Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system is not mandatory more than 93% of all children between the ages of one and five attend an ECEC institution (barnehage) for more than 40 hours per week (Statistics Norway 2024). Internationally, the number of younger children, especially two-year-olds, is increasing in ECEC, and there is a need for knowledge about what characterizes high-quality teacher practice in play (White, Ranger, and Peter 2016). The present study aimed to investigate ECEC teachers’ practices in two-year-old children’s play as an intersubjective space. Karoff (2013, 76) understands play practice as all the doings in the play activity. In our exploration of play practice, we build on Kemmis et al. (2014), who define practices as intersubjective space, which can be seen as ‘the space that lies between people’ (4). Socially established human activity in intersubjective space involves utterances and forms of understanding (sayings), modes of action (doings), and ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relations), all of which can occur at the same time in various ways. As such, intersubjective space can contribute to an increased understanding of teachers’ interactions in young children’s play by offering a holistic approach.

When playing, children explore themselves and their surroundings, and they can be creative and use their whole personality to grow (Winnicott 2005, 71). It is crucial, even for the youngest children, to participate in play through various ways of bodily and sensory exploration (Løkken 2009). How teachers interact with young children may significantly affect children’s opportunities to participate in play (Greve and Kristensen 2015; Wolf 2015). Insight into the teacher’s practices can give us both a focused and holistic knowledge of their interactions in play and how these promote or inhibit the children’s opportunities to participate. Teachers’ involvement in two-year-old children’s play is highlighted as an important yet under-researched dimension of early childhood education (White, Ranger, and Peter 2016).

In the current study, we use the concept of ‘play’ to refer to activities that are ‘driven by intrinsic motivation and undertaken for [their] own sake, rather than as a means to an end’ (CRC 2013, 5). The play practices investigated were teachers’ interactions in children’s self-initiated play. More specifically, the objective of the current study was to investigate what characterizes ECEC teachers’ play practices when interacting with children aged 2 to 3 years old during play and to discuss how this can influence play as an intersubjective space. We aim to develop an increased understanding of teachers’ practices in children’s play through Kemmis et al’.s (2014) concept of intersubjective space and the holistic approach that takes into account the dynamic relationship between the teacher, the children, the physical context, and the play themes.

Intersubjective space as a theoretical and analytical lens

Intersubjective space is part of the theory of practice architecture (Kemmis et al. 2014). This theory’s dynamic perspective includes history and traditions continually influencing practices and what is happening here and now with the people present at any given time. In practice, the participants align themselves with intersubjective space but also create it with what they say, do and the way they relate to others. Based on this theory, the focus is not on the individual or the structures but on the practice and how it shapes both the individual’s actions and the structures that frame the practice (Kemmis et al. 2014). The purpose is not primarily to describe what is said, done and how but to understand how certain expressions, actions, and relations are connected in a practice. This is what gives the practice its characteristic form (Kemmis et al. 2014). The concepts of verbal interactions, actions and relations are connected and provide insight into different dimensions of the ECEC teacher’s professional play practice.

The mutual influence between practice and practice architectures (surrounding structures) can be analyzed as three dimensions in intersubjective space: semantic space, physical space and social space. This refers to the interaction between individuals and structures. The semantic space is realized through language and affects both what is addressed and how the participants interact (Kemmis et al. 2014). For instance, they focus on the verbal interactions between the teacher and the children in play. Physical space and time are realized through activity and work, and different materials and spaces affect intersubjectivity (Kemmis et al. 2014). For instance, teachers may use materials such as dolls, trains, and balls. The social space is realized through the social community, here through recognition and trust, and the climate in this space is important for drawing any benefits from it (Kemmis et al. 2014). For this dimension, the focus can include the teachers’ initiative in making and maintaining the social connection between the children and between themselves and the children in play. At any time, these dimensions are in motion and are affected by the participants, the context, and the actions that take place in the play.

Research on ECEC teachers’ play practices

Previous research has investigated preschool teachers’ play practices in different ways. In Fleer’s (2015) study, nine ECEC teachers were filmed when interacting with children (3 to 5 years old) in play. The teachers’ roles were either described as (a) more actively participating inside the free play or (b) more passive, observing and supporting from the outside. When involved in children’s play, teachers take on roles that include asking questions, observing children at play, acting as narrators of the play observed, and setting up play activities by providing materials (Devi, Fleer, and Li 2018). Teachers’ interactions could involve developing the play content further by, for example, introducing new themes and ideas and contributing to new events that could give the children additional play experiences (Fleer 2015).

Devi et al (2018) and Fleer (2015) found that most teachers positioned themselves outside of children’s play, which Ivrendi (2020) describes as the onlooker-stage manager role. The same pattern has been found in a study investigating children aged 1 to 3 years old (Wolf 2015). The author describes the teacher’s role as an onlooker, active observer or producer and actor. Their actions in these roles created either opportunities or obstacles for the play. For instance, introducing new materials or new ways of using them could provide children with opportunities to expand their play. On the other hand, the regulation of the materials could end the play or exclude children from participation.

Kleppe (2017) uses the concept of scaffolding to describe and highlight how a teacher could interact with the youngest children. In ECEC, this scaffolding is often connected to how the teacher opens or expands the transformative properties of the room and materials (Greve and Kristensen 2018). Power interactions between children in play are common (Cederborg 2021; Nome 2017), and in this context, the importance of scaffolding from teachers is also emphasized by Nergaard (2022) in her exploration of children’s need for empathy when rejected in play. Her findings show the importance of ECEC practitioners being present and available for emotional and social support for children in play negotiations as well as the practitioner’s involvement in facilitating participation, children’s empathic expressions and promoting inclusion.

It is essential for teachers to improvise and be open to the unexpected when participating in children’s play (Greve, Bergvik, and Kristensen 2023, 187). At the same time, improvising and being open to the unexpected are challenging for teachers. Greve et al. (2023, 93–100) conceptualize this issue as a kind of mental blockage and may be expressed as difficulty in accepting the fiction or as the teacher asking questions that end the play.

The manner of the dialog between the teachers and the two-year-old children can be decisive for the intersubjectivity the children can experience. In this context, White et al. (2018) find that the dialogs were richer when they took place in flexible learning environments and when the teacher used verbal and nonverbal language plus watching. How teachers talk could also be an essential part of their play practice. Meacham et al. (2013) investigate teachers’ talk when participating in play, finding that four types of typical play – instruction talk were used by teachers. In the first type, ‘play-embedded instructional talk’, the teachers used pretend talk and were in character. This talk could include more advanced vocabulary used in, for example, play dialogs. The second type was explicit instructional talk, which included directly taught vocabulary, such as definitions and repeating of words. The third type was play language coaching, in which the children were prompted to use specific sentences in pretend play. In the play administrational type of talk, the teacher explains the play context to the children and sets up roles and costumes. Although the participating teachers’ talk greatly varied, the analysis shows that all but one teacher used administrational and instructional talk more than play-embedded talk. Play-embedded talk was used in less than 50% of utterances, supporting the pattern that has been observed in Ivrendi’s (2020) and Fleer’s (2015) studies. In our study, we investigated teachers’ play practices and interactions beyond the teacher’s role to better understand play as an intersubjective space.

Methodology

The present study was part of a larger study of children’s development in ECEC (the SMNS study). Video observations of the teachers’ practices were used to collect the data.

Participants

Eighteen teachers (17 females and 1 male)¹ from 15 ECEC institutions in Norway participated. ECEC teachers in Norway are required to have three years of higher education (a bachelor’s degree). The ECEC institutions in the sample had between one and seven classrooms, with three classrooms being the most common. Most of the ECEC institutions were owned by the municipality. We recruited participants from a list of ECECs that also serve as teacher training institutions. Teacher training institutions participate regularly in collaboration with the university that offers a bachelor’s degree in ECEC. Hence, we have assumed that this would give us classrooms of high quality to film in. The teachers were filmed in separate settings of their choice, with a group of two to five children, all of whom were the same age (2 to 3 years old). The teachers, with 54 children in total, included 32 girls and 22 boys (mean age 35 months; range 28–41). We identified nine role-play situations, six construction plays, two physical activity plays, and one parallel play situation (see Table 1 for an overview). The role-play situations involved children pretending that they or the material was someone or something else, as well as the use of imaginary materials. These situations involved playing with other children and/or the teacher and included playing with soft toys, dolls, and kitchen equipment. Construction play involved children playing with railways, plastic pearls, and bricks (e.g. Lego and Duplo). Physical activity play situations involved bodily play on mattresses and with a ball. The parallel play situation involved children playing with different materials with little or no interaction between them.

Table 1. Overview of the participants and context of the 18 play situations.

	Participants	Play situations
1	Teacher and two children	Role-play with soft toys
2	Teacher and four children	Role-play with dolls
3	Teacher and three children	Role-play with cars and trains
4	Teacher and three children	Parallel play with Lego, dolls, and cars
5	Teacher and three children	Physical activity play
6	Teacher and two children	Construction play with plastic pearls
7	Teacher and three children	Parallel play in the play kitchen and with the train
8	Teacher and four children	Construction play with trains
9	Teacher and three children	Construction play with bricks
10	Teacher and two children	Role-play in the play kitchen
11	Teacher and four children	Role-play in the play kitchen
12	Teacher and five children	Construction play with trains
13	Teacher and three children	Construction play with Duplo
14	Teacher and three children	Role-play with Lego
15	Teacher and five children	Role-play with costumes
16	Teacher and four children	Construction play with trains and Lego
17	Teacher and two children	Physical activity play
18	Teacher and two children	Role-play with Duplo

Data collection and ethical considerations

Each teacher was filmed for approximately 10 minutes in a group play situation. The researchers gathered a total of approximately four hours of video material. In all the classrooms, the researchers conducted the video observations by following the teacher with a handheld video camera without additional equipment. The teacher’s play practice was the unit of analysis; therefore, a handheld video camera was chosen to capture all the teacher’s actions and movements. In retrospect, the teachers did not move as much as expected, and most were sitting on the floor playing with the children. As such, a stationary camera could have been used.

Eight researchers, six researchers and two of the authors, conducted the observations. All the researchers participated in joint training sessions before the observations took place. In these sessions, focus was placed on how the video observations were to be carried out. All videos were obtained inside ECEC classrooms between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.

The study was approved by the Norwegian Center for Research Data (reference number 60456). ECEC teachers and parents, here acting on behalf of the children, were asked for consent to participate and be filmed on one occasion. The teachers informed the children about the project. We were prepared to stop filming if the children seemed insecure or signaled bodily that they wanted us to leave the situation. However, we did not experience this. The children’s names have been anonymized.

Analysis and trustworthiness

We used NVivo as our qualitative analysis software (Bazely and Jackson 2013), and the analysis was carried out in four stages. First, the empirical material was transcribed, with an emphasis on verbal utterances and bodily doings as markers for the interaction. Second, the authors read the transcriptions thoroughly, both individually and as a group, to obtain an overview of the empirical material. Third, the authors used the intersubjective space from the theory of practice architecture (Kemmis et al. 2014) in theory-driven coding (Brinkman and Tangaard 2020). All play situations were analyzed using the three dimensions of intersubjective space (semantic, physical, and social). To exemplify the analysis process, we used an excerpt from the following video observations. In this situation, Isabelle, Carita, and the teacher interact in role-play in the play kitchen:

Teacher: Maybe we should cook some food? Look here. Carita must come to help us. We need some butter.

Isabelle: Butter.

Teacher: Carita, Carita, come. Do you want this one? Oh, shall we empty it? Like that. Maybe we need a spoon? Oh, that is a big spoon! Put it in the bowl, and then we need to stir (the teacher is pretending to make something). The teacher asks Carita: Do you want to stir? Carita puts the spoon in her mouth. (Play situation 10)

In the analysis of the semantic dimension, we focused on how the teacher used verbal utterances in interactions with the children. The teacher asks Isabelle if they should cook some food. The teacher uses verbal utterances to make suggestions about what the next thing to happen could be. The teacher also puts what was happening into words. In addition, the teacher uses verbal utterances to clarify the child’s role in the play situation, such as when Carita is encouraged to put butter in the bowl. The teachers’ use of physical material in this context means both how they used the material themselves and how they encouraged the children to use it. In role-play in the kitchen, the teacher encourages Isabelle to find a plastic play spoon, and then, the teacher uses the spoon to stir the butter in the bowl. When the teachers use materials in children’s play in this observation, they use both real materials, such as spoons, and fantasy materials, such as butter. When we analyzed the observations with the social dimension as a lens, we searched for how the teacher was interacting to make social connections between the children. In the observation of role-play in the kitchen, the teacher includes Carita in Isabelle’s play by highlighting that they need butter in their play. The teacher also connects the two girls throughout this process.

In the fourth step, we searched for patterns in teachers’ play practices across three dimensions: semantic, physical, and social. This analysis process used a more inductive approach. The patterns almost revealed themselves, and we found three characteristics: creating connections, expanding, and regulating.

The credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative studies can be enhanced by making the research process transparent (Elo and Kyngäs 2007). We have written our methodological decisions and choices in such a way as to be transparent. When working on the analysis, all three researchers were involved in joint coding sessions as well as separate sessions. Any disagreements in coding were resolved through discussions and a review of the raw data. In addition, several researchers were involved in the data collection, the analysis was presented at scientific conferences, and other researchers have read and commented on earlier versions of the manuscript. Our study also included data from different participants, ECEC institutions (n = 15), ECEC teachers (n = 18), and children (n = 53). In addition, we used practice architecture theory to interpret the data.

Findings

In this section, we present our findings related to what characterizes ECEC teachers’ play practices when interacting with 2- and 3-year-old children in play. There were major similarities in the teachers’ actions across the three dimensions: semantic, physical, and social. We identified three characteristics: creating connections, expanding, and regulating.

Creating connections at play

The first kind of play practice observed in intersubjective space, emphasizing the semantic, material, and social dimensions of the interactions between the teachers and the children, was creating connections in play. In their play practices, the teachers interacted to create different kinds of connections for the children, as seen with Conrad, Peter, and the teacher’s ball play. In this scenario, the teacher is sitting on the floor with a ball in their arms, and the boys are standing approximately two meters away:

Teacher: Yes, will you catch the ball, Conrad? (The teacher throws the ball to Conrad, who catches it).

Teacher: Great! If you throw it back at me, Conrad, I will throw it over you, and you, Peter, can catch it. Stand behind Conrad, Peter, and I will throw it to you. (Play situation 5)

In this observation, the teacher initiates the ball play and, during play, creates connections between Conrad and Peter. First, the teacher catches Conrad’s attention using the ball, then the teacher includes Peter in the play using the ball, verbally describing what roles the boys will have and highlighting how the boys should relate to each other. The teacher asks Peter to stand behind Conrad so they can throw the ball over Conrad, and Peter can catch it.

The teachers also created connections in other ways for the children, as we observed in Mary’s observation during some railway play. The teacher is sitting on the floor, leaning their back against a sofa. Three children play with cars, as follows:

Mary bends forward and picks up a red train from the floor. She points and says: Wheel. The teacher and Mary are both looking at the wheels on the train. The teacher responded: Wheels, do you have any on your big bicycle at home? The teacher bends down and puts a hand on the train to steer it toward Mary. Mary says: There it comes (the train). The teacher repeats: There it comes, adding a: Choo-choo. The teacher pulls their legs up to make a gap and says: Drive into the tunnel!

(Play situation 3)

In this situation, Mary points to the wheel on the red train and says the word ‘wheel’. First, the teacher focuses on the wheels of the train. Afterward, the teacher uses verbal utterances connecting the wheel of the train to the wheels Mary has on her bicycle at home. The teacher creates a social relationship between the train wheel, both verbally and physically, and the bicycle Mary has at home. This is a way to interact that creates connections between Mary’s home life and her family and her life in ECEC.

Furthermore, the teachers used semantic interactions to create connections between the material in the play and the children’s own experiences. In the following example, the teacher and a group of children sit on the floor and play with Duplo figures:

Teacher: Did you find sheep? Yes! Do you remember that we saw sheep in the forest?

Lena: Yes.

Teacher: In the forest … The little lambs have gotten big now. (Play situation 18)

The teachers also used semantic interactions to converse with several children at the same time. In summary, this pattern shows that the teachers created connections between the children, between the children’s lives in ECEC and at home, and between the children’s experiences and the material.

Expanding the play

The second kind of play practice observed in the intersubjective space, emphasizing the semantic, material, and social dimensions of the interactions between the teachers and the children, was expanding the play. The teachers interacted in different play situations at the same time. In the following example, the teacher is talking to Gina, who is playing as a chef, and Brian and Alice, who are playing with trains:

Teacher: Is this soup? (Gets a plate from Gina). Can I eat this too? (Turns toward Brian and Alice). Is the tunnel too low?

Alice: It is too small.

Teacher: Does the train not fit in the tunnel? Perhaps you need to build more on the railway. Build a big one! (Return to Gina). Oh! More coffee? This [plastic cup] is very full; I must not spill it. Have you tasted the coffee?

Gina nods. (Play situation 7)

This way of using the material (plate, tunnel, or train) and semantic conversations could be described as multiple single dialogs that expand the play situations individually. Socially, this way of interacting probably develops the relationship between the teacher and the child but not between the children, such as between Gina and Alice.

In some play situations, the teacher’s semantic interactions expanded the play by adding new elements to it. For example, the teacher could simply say, ‘I think he [the doll] would like some food now’, and the semantic utterance with the food could bring the play forward thematically. The same pattern was seen in the role-play between the teacher and three children in the play kitchen:

Teacher (pretends to eat from a plastic plate): It is empty now. Have we eaten it all?

Alice: Yes.

Teacher: Do you need help washing up? (Play situation 7)

Here, the teacher introduces the concept and activity of washing up into the play. Much of what we have coded as semantic interactions included teachers responding to and expanding on the children’s utterances. The teachers would acknowledge the children’s utterances, often by repeating or responding briefly to what the children said and then expanding the responses by adding new elements to their play. In the following example, a group of children is playing with different costumes, and Eline wants to try on a robe:

Teacher: Yes, there you go! Now, we need to fasten this here. Wow, are you the queen?

Eline: King.

Teacher: Right, you are the king. Would you also like a crown to wear? (Finds a hat that looks like a crown)

Eline: Yes. (Play situation 15)

In this example, the teacher and Eline negotiate their role in the play, and the teacher acknowledges Eline’s suggestion of being a king. The teacher also introduces the concept and material of the crown. The teachers would also expand on the responses by teaching the children something, as in the following example, where the teacher and two children were doing role-play with Duplo figures:

Ida: I found two.

Teacher (counting the elephants): One, two, three. You have got three elephants.

Ida: One, two, three. (Play situation 18)

By counting the elephants Ida is playing with, the teacher responds to Ida’s statement and, in doing so, expands Ida’s semantic utterance. This semantic interaction could also include introducing new words; for example, when two boys are playing with cars, the teacher leans forward and says, ‘We’ve got a red light here. There were a lot of heavy goods being transported today!’ (Play situation 3). In this statement, the teacher both gives the play a direction and expands it by labeling the vehicle the boys are playing with as a heavy goods vehicle.

Another example of expanding play socially is when the teacher makes suggestions that add something socially new that leads to children extending play:

Odin: I want an elephant.

Teacher: Do you want an elephant in the fire truck? Then, you need to ask Ida if you can borrow an elephant. Can Odin borrow an elephant to have in the fire engine, Ida?

Ida gives an elephant to Odin. (Play situation 3)

In this situation, the teacher guides Odin to ask Ida for the elephant he needs to expand his play. In summary, this pattern showed that teachers expanded their play by adding elements, such as new material and semantic utterances, to broaden imaginary play and include more children in play.

Regulating the play

The third kind of play practice observed in intersubjective space, here emphasizing the semantic, material, and social dimensions of the interactions between the teachers and the children, was regulating the play. In the following situation, two children and the teacher are playing with bricks on the floor in the classroom:

(John touches the teacher’s chest with his fingers).

Teacher: Are you going to tickle me?

(Selma comes, and John and Selma tickle the teacher).

Teacher: Don’t tickle me. Don’t tickle me. (The teacher laughs).

Teacher: Now you’re being a little silly. (Selma and John continue to tickle the teacher). The teacher brings John and Selma close to their bodies and says: I think we have done enough tickling. The teacher points at the ceiling and says: Look what’s on the ceiling. Can you see the fishing net? Are there any fish in the net? Then, John says: There! Selma points to the ceiling. The teacher: There are fish there. Three small fish. Holds up three fingers. (Play situation 17)

In this situation, the teacher tries to use words to stop Selma and John’s tickling but fails. She then uses the fishing net to draw the children’s attention away from the tickling.

In our empirical material, there were several examples of teachers using materials either instead of or to reinforce words to end behavior or play. For example, when Silje and Clara are jumping on a mattress for several minutes. During this, the two girls become increasingly loud and sweaty:

Teacher: Time for a break, I think. Are you tired? Should the rabbit sleep?

(The children continue the play by putting all the soft toys in a line).

Teacher: Oh, it’s breaktime (She lays her head down and closes her eyes, pretending to sleep).

(Silje continues jumping up and down).

Teacher: Look at Clara. She is sleeping with all her soft toys. (Then, she sings quietly): ‘All the animals are sleeping, all the animals are sleeping, all the animals are sleeping, oh yes, yes, yes’. (Play situation 1)

In this example, the teacher attributes imagined properties to the soft toys and tries to end the play. Despite the teacher’s suggestion, Silje and Clara continue to play.

In the observations, the teachers most commonly used semantic interactions to negotiate over the play. This observation includes a teacher and two children role-playing with soft toys:

Sarah is playing with soft toys: Shall they go to bed?

Teacher: Shall they go to bed?

Sarah: No.

Teacher: No? What shall they do, then? Go for a walk?… okay (she turns toward Clara, looks at her, and says). The rabbit and the fox are going for a walk.

Sarah: He is not going there.

Teacher: Where are they going, then?

Sarah: Playland.

Teacher: Playland?

Sarah: Yes. (Play situation 1)

Here, the soft toys are the focus of the play, and the teacher, Sarah, and Clara use verbal utterances to negotiate what the next action for the soft toys will be. Only a few examples of semantic interactions were because of conflict among the children, and in these cases, the semantic interactions were used to explain and describe the children’s actions. In the following example, Irene, Gina, and Paul are building with Legos.

Irene: I am hurt.

Teacher: Are you hurt? Perhaps we should call for an ambulance. Where is the phone? We need to call for an ambulance! (Irene stretches to get the phone, but Paul is faster and grabs it). Paul! Paul! Paul! (The teacher takes the phone and gives it to Irene. Paul is screaming).

Teacher: Did you want to …

Paul: Yes (continues to scream).

Teacher: However, you need to wait a moment (Paul is crawling over the floor to get another phone). Oh, good! Another phone. It was clever of you to find the phone! (Play situation 14)

Here, the teacher uses the semantic utterances ‘Oh, good!’ and ‘That was clever of you to find that phone!’ in a way that mitigates the disagreement between the children.

The teachers tended to use social interactions in the children’s play to regulate the play or to motivate the children to play. A form of regulation is shown in this situation where the teacher and three children are playing with Duplo:

The teacher says to John: Are you a cuddly boy today? (Selma turns around and wants to cuddle but is turned away by the teacher. Selma then destroys the tower the children were building and throws a Duplo block at Ingrid’s head).

Teacher (to Selma): You must not do that! It will hurt. You mustn’t do that! (Turns to Ingrid). Should we see if we can find other Duplo blocks? (The teacher finds a block and gives it to Ingrid.) (Play situation 13)

Here, the teacher supports and confirms the children’s feelings and regulates their behavior to support them socially. In this situation, the teacher does not seem to meet Selma’s need for a cuddle. Selma then destroys Ingrid’s tower. Another way in which teachers socially regulate play is by praising, confirming, and guiding prosocial and proactive behavior:

Ida shakes her head and says: I want this (points to Odin’s fire engine).

Teacher: You will get it when Odin is done with it; you can swap in a minute.

Ida: I want it! (Takes the car).

Odin: No! (Takes the car back).

Teacher to Ida: You can ask Odin if you can borrow it.

Ida to Odin: Can I borrow it for a bit?

Odin wheels the car over to Ida.

Teacher: Great, awesome, Odin!

Teacher to Ida: That was very kind of Odin. (Play situation 3)

In this situation, the teacher regulates the play by guiding Ida on how she can ask Odin nicely to borrow the fire engine and praises Odin in front of Ida for letting her borrow it. In summary, this pattern shows that teachers often regulate or coach play indirectly by using material and imaginary play talk to change the direction of the play or end it.

Discussion

In the present study, we have investigated what characterizes ECEC teachers’ practices when interacting with children aged 2 to 3 years old during play. We analyzed the observations using the three dimensions of intersubjective space: physical, semantic, and social. Across these three dimensions, we found that teachers were actively improving and engaging in play by creating connections, expanding, and regulating play. As such, our study differs from previous studies that have shown that teachers most often positioned themselves outside of children’s play (Devi, Fleer, and Li 2018; Fleer 2015; Ivrendi 2020).

A key finding was that the teachers’ practices seemed critical for the play to either develop or end. For instance, the teacher directs the children to look at the fishnet at the ceiling to end the tickling play (situation 17) or introduces a red light signal to develop the car play (situation 3). When the teachers developed the play, it seemed essential that they participated in what Greve et al. (2023) would call an improvisational way and that they were open to the unexpected. An example of this is play situation 15, where Ida wanted to be a king instead of what the teacher suggested: a queen. We found that the teachers developed the play when they scaffolded it in a way that helped the children make connections and/or expand the play. This way of scaffolding involves giving the children an opportunity to create play experiences that they need assistance to achieve (Kleppe 2017), which is important regarding opportunities for the youngest children to participate in play (Greve and Kristensen 2015). Greve and Kristensen (2018) connect this way of scaffolding to how the teacher opens or expands the transformative properties of the room and materials. With dynamic interactions across the semantic, physical, and social dimensions, in our observations, the teachers also scaffolded the children through more complicated parts of the play. For instance, in play situation 3, when Ida wants David’s car, the teacher uses what Meacham et al. (2013) call play language coaching and scaffolds Ida to create verbal utterances to ask David if she can borrow it. This way of scaffolding is also emphasized in an emotional context in Nergaard’s (2022) exploration of children’s need for empathy when rejected in play. Her findings show that children’s need for empathy was predominantly initiated by the desire to play and experience a sense of belonging, and this need was expressed toward other children as well as ECEC staff. For this to happen, Nergaard (2022) finds that the teacher must be present and available for emotional and social support for children in play negotiations as well as the teachers’ involvement in facilitating participation, encouraging children’s empathic expressions, and promoting inclusion.

The teachers in our study initiated, engaged, and regulated the play activities, suggesting that teachers have the power to define and influence the play and the relationships between the children and children’s opportunities to be included. However, there were some exceptions, such as in play situation 1, when the teacher tried to end jumping by suggesting that soft toys would like to sleep. The children were not willing to end their jumping, ignored the teacher’s utterances, and continued the play. This indicates that the teacher, with their play practice, has some power but that children can oppose and show resistance to them. Several researchers have investigated children’s power in play (e.g. Cederborg 2021; Nome 2017), showing that young children can handle power positions in play and regulate the space that lies between them. Our study indicates that children also handle power positions in the intersubjective play space regarding teachers by not accepting the teacher’s initiative but instead continuing to play and/or negotiate with the teacher. Nome (2017) finds that children used materials to negotiate in play. We found that this strategy of handling power positions was also used by the teachers, for instance, when the teacher tried to end the children’s tickling and started to point at and talk about the fishing net on the ceiling.

Our analysis shows the complexity of teachers’ practices with children in play as an intersubjective space. For instance, in the physical dimension, teachers use materials to start play, develop the play theme, invite children to participate, and create connections between the children in play. They also use materials to change or end the play. For example, talking through soft toys can calm children down. In the semantic dimension, the teachers verbally describe the children’s actions in play, suggest and add new elements, and negotiate the further play theme with the children. In the social dimension, the teachers connect the children in play with each other and create a common focus to encourage prosocial interactions between the children. The teacher in this dimension also supports and confirms what they have identified as the children’s feelings during play. This is done to raise awareness among the children and correct their behavior to support them socially. Taken together, our findings suggest that ECEC teachers need high competence in these areas to scaffold young children’s opportunities to participate in play. In all observations, the teachers were physically close to the children’s play, either as participants in the play or, as Fleer (2015) conceptualizes, as observing and supporting from the outside.

Limitations

The present study has several limitations. Each teacher was filmed once every 10 minutes. As such, we captured only a glimpse of the teacher’s play practice, which could be representative of only a part of the teacher’s interactions. In addition, the teachers initiated the play situation and knew that we would be filming for 10 minutes. None of the teachers or children left the play situation. We do not know whether this is their regular practice during play. Furthermore, the camera following the teacher may have influenced their interactions. The teachers were not interviewed and were not involved in the interpretation of the videos. In addition, we observed only what the camera captured. As such, there was only a limited inclusion of the surroundings in the analysis. The authors are also trained ECEC teachers themselves and could have blind spots regarding Norwegian ECEC routines.

Conclusion

We found a pattern in the observations: The teacher’s play practices varied between creating connections, expanding, and regulating in the play situations. This pattern was found across the observations and indicated that ECEC teachers have common competencies in how to engage in children’s play. However, we do not know how this competence is developed. More research is needed to expand our knowledge of teachers’ play practices. For instance, investigating what information and strategies around play are taught in ECEC teacher education and how this is further developed in the professional learning community of ECEC institutions.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the teachers and children who participated in the current study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Because one male participated, the pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’ will be used in the presentation of the findings, regardless of whether the person referred to is a female or male teacher to preserve their anonymity.