Playful learning with objects and why it matters

Why does play matter in Higher Education? 

Playing with objects as a means of learning about their inner and outer life is a core and universal experience for children in their early years. This type of play crosses cultures and spans millennia; play is hardwired into human experience, it allows us to discover what makes successful human relationships, how to build friendships, the nature of alienation and so on.  Toys have a crucial role in childhood play and are common archeological finds.  It is easy to imagine a child of any time or culture playing with an improvised animal toy, catapult or often something as simple as a stick.  

Psychologist Len Vygotsky observed that “...play fulfills children’s needs” (1978, p.92), and arguably this need does not end at the onset of puberty as play continues to be inherently valuable to understanding ourselves and our place in the world through early adulthood and beyond (Proyer, 2017; Hromek et al., 2009).  The growing popularity of adult board games, digital gaming and so on, shows a level of interest and perhaps need for structured play in society.  The board games sector alone was worth an estimated 13.06 billion USD globally in 2023, with forecasts for the next ten years rising far higher (Fortune, 2024).   In higher education, gamified learning has also become increasingly popular, with digital advances creating opportunities for complex and multifaceted games to be developed (Advance HE, 2020). Play therefore, particularly play within knowable boundaries, appears to be important to us both educationally and financially.

As engines of progressive thought, universities are primed to provide a learning experience that prioritises criticality.  All successful students drive their progression by developing their capacity for critical thinking, which is fundamental not only to study and research, but also to future careers and lifelong learning.  Without criticality, we are bound up in cycles of repetition and stagnation of thought; progress comes to a standstill, we are simply stuck with what we already have.  Productive play with objects can provide a means to developing criticality and is a valuable counterpoint to traditional modes of learning in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula.  It provides a semi-structured route to experimenting with ideas, trying on new perspectives, using evidence and so on; all valuable assets when developing a critical lens for study.

Whilst play through gamified learning usually conforms to a series of rigid rules and outcomes, learning with objects can accommodate a Froebelian looseness, allowing students to generate and pursue their own questions and hypotheses.  Research at the University of Leeds indicates that students enjoy this freedom and flexibility of approach, finding the learning environment that it creates stimulating and motivating, increasing their sense of curiousity (Newton, 2025).  Learning with objects therefore has the potential to create an environment in which students can learn effectively and with increased commitment, than under a more controlled approach (Ryan & Deci, 2020).  

Social learning

Post-pandemic higher education is grappling with low student attendance at taught classes who are often screen-weary as a result of the rush to teaching and learning exclusively online in 2020 (Times Higher Education, 2022; Lepp et al., 2022; Zaretsky, 2022).    Other issues such as the cost of living, mental health problems and pressure to achieve high grades, may mean that many students approach their learning in a strategic way in the sense that they focus their efforts on the most essential tasks and struggle to thrive in the academic realm as we know it (McMurtrie, 2022). Add the explosion of AI to the mix and we have a complex and rapidly changing student body with different experiences and expectations of higher education and what they hope to get from it.  The contrast with pre 2020 learning is marked and profound.

Learning with objects is one way to shift our perspectives and expectations, by pushing pedagogy in both a material and playful direction.  The physical nature of on campus learning with objects necessitates social learning which is seen by many as being highly beneficial; “...social contexts catalyze both within and between-person differences in motivation and personal growth, resulting in people being more self-motivated, energized and integrated in some situations, domains, and cultures...”  (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p.68).  The natural successor to social learning is the progression towards a socially connected learning community.  When we are connected to our community, our sense of self and personal value is likely to be enhanced, making the university experience more fulfilling as a result (Fay & Skipper, 2022).  In a post-covid world, these benefits are highly sought after.

Conversations triggered by interaction with objects can be both fun and freeing as they enable participants to share and reflect on their unique perspectives.  When the route of enquiry becomes more self or group-directed than led by an authority figure, the energy between participants is perhaps one of greater potential.   As Erikson observes: “A conversation becomes playful when you don't know what the response is going to be to anything you say, and you say what you want with the idea that there will be a response to it. That can be fun but also very unpredictable. It can be fun or it can be a letdown, but there is always a potential.” (Erikson cited in Benveniste, 1998, p.54)

Could it be then, that playful learning with objects might re-invigorate our university classes by a process of democratising the learning space, deepening connections with others and increasing motivation as a result?  There is a growing evidence base for a link between learning with objects and well-being, as amply demonstrated in Kador and Chatterjee’s excellent book Object-Based Learning and well-being (2021).  Furthermore, if we see playful learning with objects through the lens of self-determination theory (Science Direct, 2024), it could be said to enhance intrinsic motivation by building curiosity plus “interest, enjoyment, [and] inherent satisfaction.” (Ryan & Deci,2020, p.72).

Play and flow

The artist and teacher Corita Kent theorised that when play and work become one, individuals achieve a state of what she called ‘PLORK’ (Kent & Steward, 2008).  This desirable state of low distractibility, high productivity and time passing more quickly, is now more commonly referred to as ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).  In flow state, individuals ‘live in the moment’, a phenomenon more commonly associated with meditation and mindfulness than academic study (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).  “By engaging in tasks at hand, people are more likely to live fully in the present and free themselves from the anxiety of the future and the lingering impact of the past” (Tse, et al., 2021).  Where objects are the focus of attention and enquiry, the process of interacting with them and other participants requires not just presenteeism, but engagement.  In this way, learning with objects, play and flow are part of the same eco-system of learning.

The multisensory nature of in person learning with objects is another aspect of this pedagogy which is conducive to achieving flow.  Craft-based mindfulness is now a well recognised phenomena, with hundreds of books and online guides available to teach yourself how to knit, bake or pickle your way to inner peace.  The materiality of craft is fundamental to the sensory experience, as is the acquisition of the right skills to create a successful end product.  Where engagement with materiality in the classroom is less common, the introduction of objects together with a more libertarian teaching method may make achieving flow easier for those who might ordinarily find it more difficult.  

Purposeful play

Incorporating learning with objects in university curricula has the potential to capitalise on the importance of play as a means of learning and engagement, embedding a social approach to learning and create opportunities for achieving flow state.  Yet the element of play might be misconstrued as being without direction or purpose.  An entirely libertarian approach would disregard all learning outcomes in favour of student-led enquiry and conclusions.  In a self-governed classroom, however, tangible outcomes are unlikely to surface, and students could be left with a rudderless, demotivating and disappointing experience. 

I would argue that one of the foundations of successful and productive play with objects relies on having clearly defined objectives and learning outcomes and communicating these to students.  It is possible that semi-structured play within a thoughtfully designed programme, may result in higher student satisfaction, deeper learning and perhaps therefore, a student body which incorporates this ethos into their personal study routines.  This hypothesis is largely unsupported by research however, and more investigation is needed into student experiences of learning with objects to fully understand the benefits and limitations of this approach.