Children's experiences on social and emotional learning through various types of guided play

1 Introduction

Social and emotional learning (SEL) in early childhood is foundational to children's wellbeing, social interaction, and play. SEL encompasses the development of competencies such as self-awareness, self-regulation, social awareness, relationship skills, and empathy (Weissberg et al., 2015). These skills enable children to understand and manage emotions, build and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (McClelland et al., 2017). Early development of social and emotional competencies is also a strong predictor of later academic achievement, mental health, and overall life satisfaction (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2012).

Social and emotional competencies develop through everyday interactions with peers and adults, particularly in play-based contexts (Vygotsky, 1978; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). However, structured SEL programs can enhance the quality of pedagogical practices in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) settings, offering educators tools to support children's development more systematically (Moazami-Goodarzi et al., 2021).

Norwegian ECEC follows a social pedagogical tradition characterized by a “whole child” approach, in which children's free play, participation, and autonomy are highly valued (Broström et al., 2018). Recent research, however, indicates that the quality of support for children's learning remains moderate to low in many settings (Baustad and Bjørnestad, 2022; Karlsen et al., 2024; Størksen et al., 2025), underscoring the need for systematic, evidence-based interventions. The SELMA project—a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Norwegian ECEC centers—was designed to address this gap by supporting the development of 5-year-old children in SEL, mastery, and wellbeing (Størksen et al., Personal communications). As part of the intervention, a range of pedagogical resources was developed for use by both staff and children (SELMA; Størksen et al., 2024). The intervention was delivered across a 9-month period through three main types of pedagogical activities. The intervention is described in detail in Section 3.1.

Despite the growing implementation of SEL interventions in ECEC, research has primarily focused on children's outcomes through quantitative methods (e.g., Domitrovich et al., 2007; Baron et al., 2017; Mondi et al., 2021). Reviews of the literature reveal that studies rely on adult-reported measures, standardized tests, or observational data to assess program outcomes in both ECEC (Benoit and Gabola, 2021; Shi et al., 2022) and schools (Durlak et al., 2011; Sklad et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017). While meta-analyses confirm the effectiveness of SEL interventions on developmental outcomes, they do not capture how children themselves make sense of or engage with program content. This is illustrated by a systematic review of eight studies investigating the impact of a structured play intervention on young children's SEL and wellbeing, in which none assessed children's experiences with the intervention (Lee et al., 2020). Consequently, children's own perspectives remain largely absent from intervention evaluations.

This gap is significant for both methodological and ethical reasons. Quantitative evaluation studies are important for establishing whether programs work, but they are less effective at illuminating the processes underlying outcomes (Folque, 2010). Directly involving children, for example through interviews, can offer important insights into their lived experiences and interpretations, as children are competent social actors capable of articulating their experiences of learning environments in ways that differ fundamentally from adult observations and assessments (Formosinho and Araújo, 2006; Folque, 2010). Including children's voices is also an ethical and democratic imperative grounded in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations (1989)), which affirms children's right to express their views in all matters affecting them, and is consistent with contemporary ethical standards in early childhood research (Bertram et al., 2025). Omitting children's experiences from intervention evaluation is therefore not methodological neutrality, but an active choice about whose knowledge counts.

To complement the main quantitative SELMA study, qualitative sub-studies have been conducted to explore how different samples of children experience various parts of the intervention (e.g., Størksen et al., 2026). This article presents one such sub-study, focusing on children's experiences with the pedagogical activities introduced during the SELMA intervention year. The research question is: How do children experience the content and teacher implementation of the SELMA intervention?

2 Theoretical foundations of the SELMA intervention

The development of the pedagogical activities in the SELMA intervention was informed by Vygotsky's (1978) sociocultural learning theory, which posits that learning occurs through active participation in social and cultural contexts. Sociocultural learning theory posits that learning is a socially mediated process in which individuals acquire knowledge and skills through interaction with more knowledgeable others within a cultural framework (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Furthermore, play is considered the leading line for young children's learning and development (Vygotsky, 1978, 2016) and is deemed crucial for children's wellbeing, engagement, and motivation (Giske et al., 2018; Koch, 2018; Nergaard, 2022).

Playful learning is a pedagogical approach that encompasses both free play and guided play and is deeply connected to sociocultural learning theory (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). The playful learning approach was introduced to bridge play and learning (Weisberg et al., 2016). In free play, children take the lead in initiating and directing their activities, driven by intrinsic motivation, without extrinsic goals (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Zosh et al., 2018). In contrast, guided play involves active teacher participation, where they introduce materials or activities with specific learning intentions while maintaining children's autonomy within the activity (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Weisberg et al., 2013, 2015; Zosh et al., 2018). While the learning goal is not explicitly communicated to the children, teachers facilitate the learning environment by introducing play materials and activities, asking questions, modeling behaviors, and supporting children's exploration, play, and learning (Fisher et al., 2011; Weisberg et al., 2015, 2016). Although teachers introduce activities during guided play, the children must retain control within the activity's context and boundaries, ensuring they experience autonomy and can explore their interests.

The playful learning approach is further supported by insights from the science of learning (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Nesbitt et al., 2023). Research highlights that children learn most effectively when they are active and engaged, when the activity or learning process is meaningful and joyful (i.e., evoking positive emotions), and when it occurs through iterative processes and interactions with other children and adults. These features are particularly harnessed through guided play (Zosh et al., 2018; Blinkoff et al., 2023, 2024). They are intertwined and may manifest at varying levels across different activities and situations (Zosh et al., 2018).

In the SELMA intervention, playful learning serves as a framework for implementing sociocultural theory in ECEC settings. Since Norwegian ECEC is characterized by abundant opportunities for free play, the SELMA intervention primarily introduced guided play activities. At the same time, teachers were encouraged to reinforce the new topics and concepts in natural contexts during free play, thereby aligning with the principles of playful learning, in which both free play and guided play are valued and recommended. The pedagogical activities were explicitly designed to reflect the core features of guided play, thereby promoting children's social and emotional learning in a developmentally appropriate and engaging manner.

3 Methodology

3.1 Development of the SELMA intervention

The SELMA intervention was developed to operationalize the “Life Skills and Health” section of the Norwegian Framework plan. This Framework Plan sets out mandatory guidelines for all Norwegian ECEC centers. It outlines the core principles and expectations for ECEC, including its values, objectives and content, children's participation, cooperation with families, transitions, pedagogical planning, working methods, and seven learning areas. A dedicated section, “Life Skills and Health,” places particular emphasis on children's social and emotional learning. For example, this section states that ECEC centers shall “contribute to the children's wellbeing, happiness, attainment, and feeling of self-worth, and they shall combat harassment and bullying.” Furthermore, it emphasizes that ECEC centers should

“be a safe and challenging place in which the children can experiment with different aspects of interaction, community, and friendship. The children shall be given support in coping with adversity, tackling challenges, and exploring their feelings and those of others.” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017, p. 11)

In addition to this section from the Framework plan, the SELMA intervention was informed by theoretical perspectives on wellbeing (Hallowell, 2002; Seligman, 2011), social competence (Gresham and Elliot, 1990), and growth mindset and optimism (Seligman et al., 1995; Dweck, 2006). Thus, theories of SEL were supplied with theoretical perspectives from positive psychology (Seligman, 2011), which has not yet been widely applied in ECEC settings (Baker et al., 2017; Campbell and Løkken, 2023). Together, these theories were used to identify the intervention's core components—Social interactions, Engagement, Love and joy, Mastery (in this project defined as a sense of optimism and a growth mindset), and Acknowledgment—forming the acronym SELMA. These components are highly intertwined; however, to help the teachers organize the intervention, they were implemented one by one over the 9-month intervention year.

Effective SEL interventions include teacher training, development of teachers' SEL skills, integration of SEL support into daily activities, and repeated opportunities for children to practice these skills (McClelland et al., 2017). Accordingly, the SELMA intervention includes multiple resources for staff and children. Researchers, in collaboration with selected ECEC staff, created a range of pedagogical activities to systematically support children's SEL, mastery, and wellbeing.

The SELMA intervention comprises three types of activities—all based on playful learning theory—and these activities constitute the content of the intervention in the present article: (1) interactive reading of books addressing relevant SEL themes, (2) weekly pedagogical videos introducing new activities and explaining core concepts in child-friendly ways, and (3) hands-on-activities, such as crafting a “gratefulness-tree” or building a playhouse together in a forest setting.

All three activity types were used across all SELMA core components (topics). Thus, the activities do not correspond directly to specific individual topics or components; rather, they function as pedagogical approaches through which all five SELMA components may be enacted.

Interactive reading (Whitehurst et al., 1988; Mol et al., 2009; Broström et al., 2013) was actively encouraged, and a children's book (Størksen and Valeur, 2025) was developed to reflect the intervention's themes. This book was used throughout the intervention year, alongside other relevant literature (Størksen et al., 2024). The pedagogical videos provided examples of activities and explained the main concepts and themes of the intervention in a child-friendly manner (Størksen et al., 2026), while the hands-on activities were designed to engage children in meaningful activities (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). Teachers were encouraged to spark dialogue and foster active engagement across all materials and activities, in line with the features of playful learning (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009). The pedagogical videos were introduced weekly, and in addition, one hands-on activity or an interactive reading session was suggested, along with optional extra activities. The teachers were encouraged to adapt the pedagogical activities to their other plans and the needs of their child group.

3.2 Research design

This study employs a qualitative research design to explore the subjective experiences and meaning-making of young children in relation to a pedagogical intervention. Qualitative methods are particularly suited to capturing the nuanced, context-dependent, and process-oriented dimensions of children's lived experiences that quantitative approaches are less equipped to address (Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Braun and Clarke, 2022). To answer the research question—How do children experience the content and teacher implementation of the SELMA intervention?—it was necessary to access children's own perspectives, rather than measuring outcomes against predefined indicators. Semi-structured interviews were chosen because they allow for responsive, child-led dialogue while maintaining a consistent thematic focus (Folque, 2010; Nergaard, 2020). This approach aligns with an epistemological stance that treats children as knowledgeable social actors capable of articulating their experiences (United Nations, 1989; Ellingsen et al., 2014; Bertram et al., 2025).

The intervention was implemented from September to May and the interviews took place approximately 8 months into the intervention.

3.3 Ethical considerations

Including children in research requires high levels of ethical awareness (Lund et al., 2016; Bertram et al., 2025). The SELMA project and the present qualitative study follow the Norwegian ethical guidelines developed by the National Committee for Research and Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH; Ethical guidelines) and were signed in for and recommended by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT) (SELMA project; 311657, present study; 307701). The present study also adheres to Articles 3 and 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations (1989)), emphasizing children's right to express their views and be heard.

Informed consent was gathered from the guardians on behalf of the children. However, to adhere to good ethical practice (United Nations, 1989; Coady, 2010), children were also asked to give their consent or assent to participate. This was evaluated before and during the interviews through close observation and sensitivity to their verbal and non-verbal cues. They were given the opportunity to withdraw at any time during the interview.

Both interviewers have extensive experience working in ECEC centers and are trained in collecting data from children in a child-friendly, respectful, and professional manner. To create a supportive environment free from pressure and minimize power imbalances, the interviewers visited the centers and spent time with the child group three times before conducting the interviews (Folque, 2010). This way, the children had the opportunity to get to know the interviewers in advance. During these visits, the interviewers also participated in pedagogical activities, which informed their interview questions, such as “Tell me about your experience during Storytime yesterday.” This approach also contributed to creating a secure and child-friendly interview space. Interviewing two children simultaneously helped them feel more comfortable, as this setting resembled a dialogue between the children and the interviewer, allowing them to discuss matters among themselves and with the interviewer's support (O'Reilly and Dogra, 2017). The interviews were approximately 30 min in length but varied in duration and content, depending on the children's communication skills, interests, and topics that emerged during the dialogue.

The teachers in the ECEC centers informed both the children and parents (guardians) in advance about the interviewers' visits. Based on their professional judgement regarding which children could support one another, they paired children accordingly. Additionally, they informed the interviewers of any conditions or circumstances that required special attention during the interviews.

3.4 Data collection

The SELMA study was conducted in Norway. Norwegian ECEC centers (barnehager), both private and public, are universally available for children aged one to five, with 97.4% of children aged three to five currently enrolled (Statistics Norway, 2024). Government subsidies ensure broad accessibility across socioeconomic groups, and staff-to-child ratios are regulated at 1:6 for this age group (Kindergarten Act, 2005).

Recruitment was conducted through the participating centers from the intervention group of the SELMA project. Two centers were strategically invited to participate in the study (purposive sample; Campbell et al., 2020) because our fidelity data indicated they had been actively implementing the intervention. This criterion was deemed sufficient to yield information-rich cases (Campbell et al., 2020) that could illuminate children's experiences. The centers were also chosen to ensure variation in geographic location (one rural, one urban, from different municipalities), with one public and one private center, and to be representative of the RCT sample in terms of size. A total of 19 five-year-old children were given parental consent to participate—nine from one center and 10 from the other.

The focus children in the overall RCT study were 5-year-olds, and this was also the case in the present study. However, during implementation across all ECEC centers, some activities were carried out with the entire child group (3 to 5-year-olds), whereas others were conducted only with the oldest children. This varies across days and hours in Norwegian ECECs, depending on practical arrangements. We do not have information on how long the focus children spent with younger children during activities, as this varied considerably throughout the day.

Nine pairs of children and one individual child were interviewed following Nergaard's (2020) descriptions. In line with recommendations from our collaborating teachers, one child was interviewed individually rather than in pair or group of three. The teacher's pedagogical assessment was that the child was confident, secure, and verbal, and that interviewing this child alone would be preferable to grouping the child with two other children. Interviewing children individually, rather than in pairs, may affect the data in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, the absence of a peer may reduce the social scaffolding that pair interviews can provide, as children often support each other's recollections and feel more comfortable speaking in the presence of a familiar peer (Heary and Hennessy, 2006; O'Reilly and Dogra, 2017). On the other hand, individual interviews may offer less distraction and allow the child to express perspectives that might otherwise be overshadowed by a more dominant peer (O'Reilly and Dogra, 2017). The data from the individual interview were treated in the same manner in the analyses as the paired interviews and were included as a valid data source, while being mindful of potential differences during the interpretive process.

The interviews were conducted in a separate room in the ECEC center. A semi-structured interview guide was used, and the first two authors of this paper (RL and SL) conducted the interviews. Open-ended and follow-up questions such as “Tell me about…” and “I am curious about…” were used to encourage children to share their thoughts, which were combined with more specific questions. Children were asked about their experiences with the pedagogical activities (interactive reading, weekly pedagogical videos, and hands-on activities). To support on-task dialogue, relevant materials from the intervention—the children's book, a pedagogical video, and examples of hands-on activities—were introduced. This way, the interviews were also informed by playful learning theory; the use of relevant materials enabled children to be active participants, and references to the SELMA sessions supported meaning-making and iterative processes. Furthermore, the materials enhanced engagement, social interaction, and positive emotions. All interviews were filmed and recorded.

The question of sample adequacy in qualitative research is not primarily determined by statistical power, but by the depth and richness of the data generated (Malterud et al., 2016; Braun and Clarke, 2021). In the present study, the concept of information power (Malterud et al., 2016) guided decisions about sample size. Given the relatively narrow aim of the study (exploring children's experiences with a specific intervention), the homogeneity of the sample (5-year-old children in Norwegian ECEC centers), and the depth of the semi-structured interview data, 19 children across 10 interviews were considered sufficient to yield analytically meaningful material. Across the interviews, a degree of thematic recurrence was observed—that is, similar patterns and experiences emerged repeatedly—suggesting that additional interviews were unlikely to substantially alter the overall analytical picture (Braun and Clarke, 2021). The collaborative, multi-author analysis process (see Section 3.5) further supported the adequacy of the dataset.

3.5 Data analysis

Vocal recordings were transcribed, and the transcriptions were cross-checked with the video recordings. Non-verbal cues in the video material did not add substantial information, given the nature of the topic. The questions did not address sensitive or difficult issues, so the children's emotional reactions during the interviews were limited. However, the video material was very useful for identifying the children and assigning codes. We also noted when children nodded in agreement with other children's statements. Transcriptions formed the basis for reflexive thematic analyses, following the steps outlined by (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2022): (1) familiarization with the data, (2) coding, (3) generating initial themes, (4) reviewing and developing themes, (5) refining, defining, and naming themes, (6) producing the final report. Thematic analysis is a flexible method for systematically identifying, organizing, and interpreting patterns of meaning (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2022) and was used to analyze children's experiences with the SELMA intervention.

Reflexivity is an essential component of reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2022), requiring researchers to critically examine how their own perspectives, values, and positionalities may have shaped the research process and analytical decisions. In the present study, three of the four authors (RL, SL, and IS) were involved in developing the SELMA intervention, and two (RL and SL) conducted the interviews. This dual role, as both intervention developers and researchers, represents a significant positionality that requires transparent reflection (Finlay, 2002).

To minimize the risk of confirmation bias and to ensure that the analysis remained grounded in the children's perspectives rather than the authors' investment in the intervention, several measures were taken. First, the fourth author (IHM), who had no involvement in developing the SELMA intervention, participated actively throughout all stages of the analysis, providing an independent analytical perspective and challenging interpretations that could reflect the other authors' proximity to the program. Second, transcriptions were systematically cross-checked with the video recordings of the interviews to ensure that non-verbal cues, such as nodding, were captured and considered in the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Third, the analytical process also included deliberate attention to negative cases, instances where children expressed disengagement, boredom, or criticism, to avoid a one-sided reading of the data. Fourth, analytical notes (Saldaña, 2013) and emergent codes were shared and discussed among all four authors throughout the process, creating a collaborative, mutually critical interpretive environment (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). These measures do not eliminate the inherent tensions of insider research, but they represent a systematic effort to enhance the trustworthiness and reflexive integrity of the analysis.

The analysis aimed to gain a deeper understanding of children's experiences with the pedagogical activities in the SELMA intervention, following an abductive approach (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). Abductive analysis involves an iterative movement between inductive engagement with the data and theoretical sensitization, allowing patterns to emerge from the material before being interpreted through relevant theoretical frameworks. The analytical process began with a thorough reading of all transcripts to identify the relevant dataset within the broader data corpus (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Because the interviews were highly child-led—with interviewers following the children's interests and allowing topics to emerge organically in order to create a comfortable and dialogic setting—a substantial portion of the data corpus was unrelated to the SELMA intervention. Identifying the relevant dataset was therefore a collaborative process among the authors, ensuring that the selection was not unduly shaped by any single researcher's perspective.

Once the dataset was established, we began the coding process inductively, immersing ourselves in the data without imposing a predetermined analytical framework. To establish a shared understanding of the material, two authors (RL and SL) independently coded the same interview transcripts, after which they met up to compare their coding, discuss discrepancies, and refine the coding framework. Subsequently, the coding framework was presented for and discussed with the entire author group. Through this process, initial codes were generated freely, based solely on the children's words and interactions, while closely attending to how they described, recalled, and made sense of the SELMA activities. The codes from this process comprised: (a) reflecting on and remembering SELMA activities, (b) expressing positive (or negative) emotions and engagement toward specific activities, (c) using concepts introduced in the intervention in novel contexts, (d) connecting intervention activities to their everyday life, and (e) characteristics of the implementation. Throughout this initial phase, the coding process remained open and theoretically unconstrained, prioritizing the children's own expressions over any preconceived categories.

As the analysis progressed through iterative rounds of review (Braun and Clarke's step 3–5), we observed that the children's descriptions resonated strongly with the features of early learning described in the playful learning literature (Weisberg et al., 2016; Zosh et al., 2018). This convergence was not imposed from the outset. Rather, it emerged as a meaningful interpretive lens for organizing and understanding the data. The abductive move thus involved allowing the theoretical framework to illuminate patterns that had already surfaced inductively in the data.

Importantly, the analysis also attended to divergent cases. For instance, several children expressed boredom or disengagement with specific activities, responses that were not filtered out but were analyzed as analytically significant in themselves. These divergent responses pointed to the roles of, for example, implementation quality (particularly teacher facilitation), activity characteristics, and individual preferences in mediating children's experiences, an insight that extended beyond a straightforward confirmation of the playful learning framework.

4 Results

The analyses show that the children found the SELMA activities meaningful and relevant to their daily lives, and they took ownership of them. The practical, playful activities boosted motivation and learning by engaging them physically, socially, and emotionally. Children valued teacher support and enjoyed collaborative activities, such as building a playhouse, which brought happiness, connection, and a sense of shared accomplishment. Although they were not explicitly asked about their learning experiences, their responses contained many relevant examples related to the characteristics of playful learning (e.g., Zosh et al., 2018). Several children spontaneously shared what they had learned through their participation in these activities. For instance, some children mentioned learning new concepts, such as being optimistic, while others highlighted new skills, such as building, being friends, using the phrase “I can't do it yet” during practice, and collaborating. This indicates a growing awareness of learning processes and outcomes.

Playful learning and the science of learning demonstrate that children learn best when they experience meaning and positive emotions, are active and engaged, and when learning processes are iterative and occur through interaction (e.g., Zosh et al., 2018; Nesbitt et al., 2023; Blinkoff et al., 2023, 2024). The findings from the present study are categorized within these features, constituting the final themes of the analyses (see Table 1). These features are intertwined and may manifest at varying levels across different activities and situations (Zosh et al., 2018).

Table 1. An overview of children's experiences across the three types of SELMA pedagogical activities and the themes from the analysis.

The following pseudonyms are used throughout: Sofia, Emma, Maja, Lena, Nora, Lars, Olav, Erik, Tobias, Mikkel, Sara, Ida, Hanna, Mia, Frida, Tuva, Noah, Kim, and Axel. Children from ECEC center 1 are referred to with the suffix (1) and children from ECEC center 2 with (2).

4.1 Meaning and positive emotions

Across the different pedagogical activities, many children expressed positive emotions and a sense of meaning. Responses to the interactive reading sessions and the children's book were mixed. Several children described the sessions as enjoyable and inspiring, while others found them less engaging. Maja (1) enthusiastically declared, “I want to write a book!”—a response that suggests the reading activity had sparked genuine motivation to create something of her own. Sofia (1) noted that “We read it all!,” indicating both enjoyment and a sense of completion and ownership. Similar positive responses to the book were shared by Nora (1) and Mikkel (1), who both responded, “It is really nice!,” and Tuva (2) and Frida (2), who said it was “fun.” These experiences stand in contrast to those of other children, who found the reading sessions less engaging (see the Active and engaged section below).

Most children found the pedagogical videos enjoyable. Lars (1) expressed that he wished the films were longer, saying that they “should have made the films longer,” and Olav (1) echoed this sentiment by saying “practice, learn and practice. Learn and practice,” showing how the video content had become personally meaningful. Lena (1) offered a nuanced reflection on her relationship with the videos over time:

We have really got the hang of them now. Before I didn't quite manage, but now I like them. Most of it is fun. They collaborate. And play.

This remark is analytically significant as Lena's engagement with the videos appears to have grown over the course of the intervention year, suggesting that iterative exposure contributed to increasing meaningfulness. Lars (1) similarly connected the video content directly to his own experience, noting that the children in the films “were carrying a tree”—a reference to the collaboration theme the children had also enacted in their own hands-on activities when building a playhouse.

Children also related the concepts introduced in the videos to their everyday lives. Frida (2) and Kim (2) reported seeing a film about magnets in which the children collaborated and were optimistic, with Kim spontaneously reproducing the concept: “They sing... Optimist.” When the interviewer asked what “optimist” meant, Frida (2) replied, “that we can do it.”

Hands-on activities such as building a playhouse generated both joy and a strong sense of community. Furthermore, Maja (1) described how the collaborative experience of balancing on sticks produced laughter and togetherness:

We laughed so much because we wanted to help each other. We had sticks and were supposed to hold them, but we fell and laughed a lot.

Hands-on activities tied to the topic of gratitude were equally meaningful. Emma (1) provided a vivid and detailed account of how the gratitude tree was physically constructed:

It is like a Christmas tree where we cut out some hearts and wrote on them. Then some made holes in them and put a thread through, so they hang on the tree.

Nora (1) extended this further, noting the activity's reach beyond the immediate group: “When someone sees that heart, they become happy inside. Then they can also make something that hangs on that tree.” The precision and warmth of these descriptions suggest that the hands-on activities left a strong and lasting impression. Axel (2) and Tuva (2) similarly recalled participating in making the gratitude tree with evident fondness, with Axel identifying it by name: “It is a gratitude tree.”

Another hands-on activity, singing the “Optimist” song, also generated positive emotions among the children. During visits to the ECEC centers, the interviewers could hear children singing independently and enthusiastically.

Children frequently used key concepts from SELMA, such as practice, optimistic, and collaborate. These concepts were introduced across all three pedagogical activities. The children were not only repeating the concepts but also internalizing them. For example, Maja (1) and Erik (1) discussed teamwork, with Maja saying, “If something is heavy, we can collaborate,” and Erik confirming, “If something is heavy, yes, then we do it together.” Similarly, Tuva (2) and Axel (2) connected the collaboration theme directly to their own play: “We can help carry things” (Tuva), and “We have a big castle [we are building]” (Axel)—unprompted references to how the SELMA concept had entered their daily activity.

Activities, especially interactive reading and pedagogical videos, were often conducted during what the children referred to as SELMA circle time or SELMA club. When the interviewers asked about children's experiences with SELMA circle time, Hanna (2) commented: “It is a bit boring because we just have to sit there.” She further stated that the teachers are the ones who are speaking during SELMA time. Mia (2) then added that this week was fun because they watched pictures of the children in their own kindergarten as friends. This suggests that when children relate the activity to their own lives and peers, it feels more meaningful, and they express more positive emotions. The distinction Hanna and Mia draw between a passive session and one anchored in familiar content illustrates the interconnection between implementation quality and the experience of meaning.

4.2 Active and engaged

Children's responses revealed varying levels of engagement depending on the type of activity, implementation, and individual preferences, underscoring the importance of tailoring learning experiences that are both cognitively and emotionally engaging.

Responses to reading sessions and the children's book ranged from enthusiasm to disengagement. As described in the Meaning and positive emotions section, many children were enthusiastic. In contrast, Erik (1) stated plainly that the book was “boring.” The same view was expressed, independently, by Noah (2), who found the book “boring,” and by Sara (2), Ida (2), and Hanna (2), who all used the word “boring” when asked about the book. Kim (2) similarly said it was “not that fun.” These contrasting responses appear to be related to differences in pedagogical approach. Hanna (2) explained her disengagement in terms of passivity: “We just had to sit there.” Hanna and Mia (2) further confirmed that they could look at the pictures, but only the teachers were talking. When activity and engagement are absent—either physically or cognitively—children are less likely to experience positive emotions or find the activity meaningful, illustrating the interconnectedness between being active and engaged and experiencing positive emotions and meaning.

The children represented different reading groups with different teachers, supporting the idea that reading sessions were implemented differently. The data indicate that children in center 1 were more positive about the reading session than children in center 2. However, even within the same reading group and with the same teacher, children had different experiences. Noah (2) and Tuva (2) were in the same group, yet Tuva described the book as “quite fun” while Noah answered “boring.” This suggests that children have individual needs when it comes to being active and engaged and finding activities meaningful and joyful.

Pedagogical videos generally elicited positive reactions. Most children expressed excitement, though a few were less enthusiastic. Kim (2) noted that the films were “a bit fun,” while Mia (2) explained that “I don't like to sit still”—locating her disengagement in the physical passivity required by video viewing. Mia (2) also stated that they never talked about the content after the videos; they only watched them, a remark that identifies the absence of interactive follow-up as a barrier to engagement. These remarks suggest that, while videos can be engaging, their effectiveness, like that of interactive reading, depends on how they are integrated into the broader learning context. Without opportunities for active involvement, children may feel detached from the material.

In contrast, hands-on activities were almost universally appreciated. Most children spoke with pride about their creations, such as the gratefulness tree, and were eager to share their work. Lena (1) explained: “We have made hearts, so that we became happy for each other and gave them away.” The practical and playful nature of these hands-on activities allowed children to engage physically, socially, and emotionally.

4.3 Interactions and iterations

The pedagogical activities were designed to foster meaningful interactions that reflect features of sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and the playful learning approach (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Zosh et al., 2018). In addition to interpersonal exchanges, children engaged with various cultural tools and materials, including books, pedagogical videos, and hands-on resources. Through hands-on experiences and meaningful interactions, children were able to internalize concepts and apply them within familiar contexts. As illustrated in several children's responses, peer and teacher interactions were central to their experiences.

Children emphasized the importance of teacher support in their learning experiences. Erik (1) described how a teacher helped him master a new physical skill:

I didn't manage to spin a bottle. Then a teacher showed me, and I could do it when I held it closer.

Maja (1) similarly noted: “Then I get help from Siri (teacher). Or from Ellen (teacher). She can also help. Or Knut (teacher).” This suggests that Erik and Maja perceived the adults as active, available collaborators rather than distant instructors.

The importance of teacher dialogue during reading was also highlighted: Hanna (2) and Frida (2) both pointed to the absence of conversation and interaction with the teacher during reading as a key reason for disengagement and experiencing less enjoyment (see Active and engaged section above).

The intervention also promoted learning through iterative processes. Concepts introduced in one format were reinforced through others. For example, the collaboration topic was presented through videos and interactive reading and later applied in hands-on tasks. Sofia (1) reflected: “We wanted to do it together as they did in the video, and it was heavy for my friend, so I helped carry it.” Tuva (2) and Axel (2) made an analogous spontaneous connection, describing how they applied the collaboration concept from SELMA to carrying things in their castle play.

The iterative nature of the activities also supported the development of self-regulatory and learning awareness. Nora (1) described how repeated practice led to mastery:

To do things, we have to practice. First, when I tried the helicopter, I didn't manage. But the next time, when we were dancing, I managed!

She added that she had also practiced at home. Erik (1) offered a similar reflection on progress through practice: “Before, I couldn't manage to climb to the top of the little house. But when [friend] and I practiced, I managed.” Olav (1) generalized the practice concept to everything he had not yet mastered: “Everything, because I can't do it. Practice, learn, and practice. Learn and practice.” Lena (1) also captured the concept succinctly: “We must practice and practice and practice.”

These responses, spanning both centers and multiple children, suggest that the collaboration and practice concept had been broadly internalized through its iterative introduction across activity types. A similar process was observed with the concept of “optimism”: Kim (2) recalled the song “Optimist” from the videos, and Frida (2) articulated its meaning as “that we can do it”—a definition that had clearly transferred beyond the SELMA sessions.

Collaborative activities, such as building a playhouse together, were associated with happiness, connection, and shared accomplishment. Sofia (1) connected this to the transfer of concepts from the children's book to action: “For that is what Kaleb and Kari did, and then the little brother got to join in. … And so they collaborated.” The intervention also fostered a sense of belonging among the children. Nora (1) described her relationship to the book:

To have a book that I can read, which belongs to the SELMA club. Only the oldest children read it.

Tobias (1) articulated his learning across multiple domains: “I have made more friends. I have learned to write car. You know what else I have learned? To write tree.” These insights underscore the importance of designing content that teaches skills and fosters identity, motivation, and a sense of community. Lena (1) also expressed the desire to continue learning: “Kind words that I haven't learned yet”—suggesting that meaningful engagement with the intervention had generated active curiosity about further social and emotional learning.

Figure 1 shows the features of early learning in the playful learning approach, which represents the three themes in the present study. As illustrated in the figure, these themes overlap significantly. (Zosh et al. 2018) describe these features as intertwined and as potentially manifesting at varying levels across different activities and situations. In the present study, for example, the active and engaged theme is related to the meaning and positive emotion theme through children's participation in hands-on activities, which made them feel happy and experienced meaningfulness. The opposite experience is when children report that they just had to sit there, which is associated with feelings of boredom. Collaboration in hands-on activities is an example of how the active and engaged theme is related to the interaction and iteration theme. Collaboration is characterized by interactions and activity, and our findings showed that through the pedagogical videos, children became enthusiastic and engaged, and wanted to do the same, which in this example was collaboration. The iterative processes supported meaning for children; for example, they took ownership of concepts introduced in all three activity types.

5 Discussion

This study explores the research question: How do children experience the content and teacher implementation of the SELMA intervention? Through semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analyses (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2022, 2024), we found that children's experiences were associated with the features of how children learn best as emphasized in the playful learning approach (e.g., Zosh et al., 2018). The following discussion is organized around the two main topics: the content of the SELMA intervention and its implementation.

5.1 The content

The SELMA content addressed in this study is categorized into three main types of activities: interactive reading, weekly pedagogical videos, and hands-on activities. These activities differ in how they naturally support children's engagement and activity levels. While interactive reading and videos may offer rich conceptual content and cognitive engagement, they are often more physically passive. In contrast, hands-on activities inherently invite children to explore, experiment, and interact with materials and peers, offering more opportunities for physical and social engagement.

This distinction was reflected in the children's responses. Children responded most consistently and enthusiastically to the hands-on activities. This finding adds to prior work (Fisher et al., 2011; Skene et al., 2022) suggesting that child-directed and guided play support greater learning gains than direct instruction in a preschool context. Fisher et al. advocated opportunities for exploration and interaction with materials (engagement) and teacher commentary (dialogical inquiry) as key mechanisms underpinning learning in guided play, features that closely characterize the hands-on activities in SELMA. Hands-on activities inherently invite children to explore, experiment, and interact with materials, peers, and teachers, offering more opportunities for physical and social engagement. The present study contributes to prior work (Fisher et al., 2011; Skene et al., 2022) by showing that children not only take advantage of these mechanisms in their learning but also identify and verbalize what makes these activities engaging. For instance, Maja (1) and Erik (1) connected the concept of collaboration that had been introduced in books and videos to the shared task of carrying something heavy, while Tuva (2) and Axel (2) spontaneously applied SELMA concepts in their castle-building play. Furthermore, children enthusiastically described the activity of making a gratefulness tree and found it meaningful.

Together, these examples suggest that hands-on activities supported the kind of joyful, engaging, meaningful, and interactive learning described by (Zosh et al. 2018) as central to guided play. Importantly, our finding is grounded in children's own perspectives, a dimension that has not been promoted in the guided play literature (see Skene et al., 2022). Thus, the findings foreground children's lived experiences, which expand on previous studies that mostly used measurable learning outcomes.

The findings related to interactive reading are more complex. Previous research has consistently demonstrated that interactive, adult-scaffolded reading enhances children's language and literacy outcomes compared with conventional reading practices (Whitehurst et al., 1988; Mol et al., 2009). Mol et al.'s (2009) meta-analysis identified that the quality of the interactive book reading, particularly adults' ability to prompt participation, expand children's contributions, and follow their lead, was the key moderating factor. The present study aligns with this conclusion, as children were explicitly critical of passive reading experiences, which resulted in lower-quality reading sessions. Hanna (2), for example, articulated this clearly “We just had to sit there.” This suggests that children as young as five not only benefit from interactive reading but also recognize and negatively evaluate the absence of such interaction. They experience passive formats as boring, which may be related to their limited opportunities for involvement.

A similar pattern emerged in the analysis of pedagogical videos. While children's responses were generally positive, Mia (2) pointed out that the group did not discuss the content after viewing. This observation resonates with Hirsh-Pasek et al.'s (2009) argument that the effectiveness of screen-based learning depends on high-quality social interaction surrounding the viewing experience, including adult responsiveness to children's questions and ideas. Without such interaction, even well-designed activities may fail to translate into meaningful learning experiences. The present study provides qualitative support for this claim from the child's perspective and further demonstrates that children themselves are aware of the absence of social interactions and active involvement.

The intervention was designed with three types of guided play activities, each complementing the others and supporting learning through iterative processes (Zosh et al., 2018). This was evident in the children's reflections, as they frequently referred to SELMA concepts—such as collaboration, optimism, and practice—across different activities and to their own everyday experiences. For instance, Sofia (1), who observed children collaborating in a video, subsequently applied this concept during a hands-on activity. Erik (1) described how repeated practice—a new concept from books and videos—led to greater mastery in outdoor activities. These examples demonstrate how reinforcing the same concepts across multiple formats can enhance understanding and foster long-term learning (see also Figure 1).

This interpretation aligns with Nesbitt et al.'s (2023) argument that active, playful learning operates through iterative processes in which children can construct meaning across contexts. However, the present study extends this perspective by illuminating these mechanisms from the child's vantage point, showing that children also explicitly described noticing them. The present study contributes by documenting this form of child-level awareness of iterative learning, which, to our knowledge, has not been previously documented in the SEL intervention literature.

Furthermore, the children's reflections revealed a growing awareness of their learning processes and outcomes. They proudly shared what they had learned and described how they had improved through practice. Some also connected the materials to a sense of belonging, such as identifying with the SELMA club or feeling proud to read a book in the group for the oldest children. These insights underscore the importance of designing content that teaches skills and fosters identity, motivation, and a sense of community.

By interviewing children, they were provided an opportunity to express their experiences (United Nations, 1989; Bertram et al., 2025) with the content in the SELMA intervention, which ensures that findings and further development of the content of interventions are shaped by their lived experiences and perspectives (Ellingsen et al., 2014).

5.2 Implementation

Children's responses revealed that the same activity could generate different experiences depending on how it was facilitated. Their experiences suggest that features such as active engagement, emotional connection, iterative learning, and meaningful interaction are not solely determined by an intervention's content and activity type, but also by how teachers facilitate and support the learning environment.

This finding is consistent with the implementation science literature on the effects of SEL programs. For example, Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger (2011) meta-analysis of 213 school-based SEL programs found that programs implemented with high fidelity produced significantly larger effect sizes than those with implementation challenges and identified teacher behavior as the primary mechanism. The present study adds a qualitative perspective by demonstrating that children's experiences are related to teacher behavior, which can represent variation in implementation quality. The children who found reading sessions boring described teacher monologs; as a result, the children were not actively engaged and reported that the activity was boring.

This finding also adds to one of the challenges of the guided learning approach. According to (Weisberg et al. 2013), guided play is an approach in which teachers have specific learning intentions, and it incorporates teacher-scaffolded learning while maintaining children's autonomy (child-directed). They argue that this balance distinguishes guided play from free play and direct instruction. The present study suggests that this balance is difficult to maintain in practice and that when it breaks down—when teachers take over, as Hanna (2) and Mia (2) described—children may experience the activity as more closely aligned with direct instruction, without experiencing autonomy and directing their own learning in the context. This is particularly important for less inherently interactive activities, such as reading and video viewing, where teachers are challenged to ensure children's autonomy and engagement. Encouraging dialogue, connecting the content to children's lives, or incorporating follow-up activities can help transform a passive experience into an active and meaningful one.

It is documented that there is significant variation in how guided play is conceptualized and implemented (Skene et al., 2022). Teachers tend to either adopt a hands-off approach, allowing free play without their involvement, or take on a more instructional role, and rarely achieve the dialogic middle ground that guided play requires (Pyle et al., 2017; Blinkoff et al., 2024). Notably, teachers report that implementing guided play is challenging (Pyle et al., 2017). Moreover, (Blinkoff et al. 2024) found that it is challenging for teachers to adopt a guided play approach in the classroom, even with instructional coaching on guided play, underscoring the need for professional training and practice. The present study extends this literature by indicating that when teachers do not align with the guided play features, children are aware of this and express negative emotions, such as boredom.

Interestingly, even within the same reading group and with the same teacher, children had different experiences. Thus, teachers need a high level of pedagogical sensitivity when implementing activities, as children have diverse experiences, interests, needs, and motivations. Some children may have extensive experience with books, which can motivate them to sit still during reading sessions. They easily engage in dialogue, and even if they are not actively participating in dialogues with the teacher, they are still cognitively engaged—thinking, making connections, and processing the story in meaningful ways. Other children may struggle to engage, both physically and cognitively, during book reading. This variation reflects how children's interests and experiences shape their learning process (Weisberg et al., 2013). Thus, implementing pedagogical activities must be understood not only as a design principle but also as a real-time, child-by-child adaptive practice. This has implications for how teacher training conceptualizes guided play facilitation.

6 Implications

The findings of this study have implications at multiple levels.

For practitioners in ECEC settings, the results show that the quality of guided play depends not only on the activity type but on how teachers facilitate children's participation, dialogue, and autonomy. Reading sessions and pedagogical videos have clear potential; children were interested in the content, internalized key ideas, and transferred concepts across activities. However, this depended to some degree on whether teachers supported interaction rather than simply delivering content. Thus, including open-ended questions, inviting children to connect content to their own experiences, and allowing time for dialogue before and after activities are ways teachers can support interactions, meaning, and engagement.

The findings also underscore the importance of teachers being sensitive to each child's and the group's needs, as well as to children's different temperaments (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002; Rudasill et al., 2010), when implementing an intervention. One effective strategy in this regard is to divide children into small groups based on developmental level, interests, or prior experiences, allowing for more tailored interactions. During a reading session, for example, a teacher can prepare children in advance, encourage dialogue, provide feedback, and challenge them accordingly. Teachers act as role models, and their enthusiasm can inspire children. When they take ownership of an intervention and adapt it to their group of children, they will better support meaningful and engaging learning.

For ECEC teacher education, the findings highlight the need for practical training in guided play facilitation. As (Pyle et al. 2017) have shown, practitioners often find guided play challenging to implement, and the present study demonstrates that children are sensitive to variation in its quality. Teacher education should therefore include opportunities for practice, feedback, and reflection, for example through video-based analysis and peer learning. The Framework Plan emphasizes children's participation (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017), while Norwegian research documents moderate to low interaction quality in ECEC settings (Baustad and Bjørnestad, 2022; Karlsen et al., 2024; Størksen et al., 2025). Strengthening the connection between play-based values and everyday pedagogical practice is therefore a key priority.

At the policy level, the findings suggest that multimodal SEL interventions, such as SELMA, can support the Framework Plan's intentions regarding wellbeing, life mastery, and social-emotional development (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). At the same time, effective implementation requires supporting structures such as coaching, professional learning communities, and systematic follow-up. Including children's experiences in evaluations can further strengthen implementation quality.

More broadly, this study argues for including children's perspectives as a standard component of ECEC intervention evaluation. The current evidence base for SEL interventions relies largely on adult-reported measures and standardized assessments. Children's perspectives provide complementary evidence by revealing what they experience as meaningful, how they perceive participation, and which concepts they have internalized and applied. Including children's voices is consistent with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) and should be understood as both an ethical and epistemological requirement.

Several directions for future research follow from these findings. First, future studies should collect data at multiple time points to examine how children's experiences develop over the course of an intervention. Second, comparative studies across different national contexts would help assess the transferability of findings from the Norwegian ECEC setting. Third, combining interview data with observational methods would provide a stronger basis for understanding the relationship between teacher practices and children's experiences. Finally, involving children in the co-design of SEL activities would further strengthen their role as active participants in both research and practice.

7 Limitations

This study advances the field by centering children's perspectives, recognizing them as active participants (United Nations, 1989; Folque, 2010; Ellingsen et al., 2014; Bertram et al., 2025), and aligning with current ethical and inclusive research practices in early childhood education. However, several limitations must be acknowledged. The participating children were drawn from only two ECEC centers. Thus, interviewing children in other centers could have brought forward other perspectives. Furthermore, each interviewer visited one center each, but the analyses were collaborative and involved all four authors.

Data were collected approximately 8 months into the 9-month intervention. This timing has potential implications for the findings that should be acknowledged. On the one hand, interviewing children near the end of the intervention year means they had extensive exposure to the SELMA activities and were therefore better positioned to reflect on their experiences across all three activity types. The familiarity and internalization of SELMA concepts evident in many children's responses may in part reflect this cumulative exposure. On the other hand, collecting data so close to the end of the year means that earlier phases of the intervention—particularly the initial introduction of concepts—are represented only through retrospective recall, which may be limited in 5-year-old children. In future studies, multiple rounds of data collection at different points throughout the intervention year could provide a richer and more longitudinal understanding of how children's experiences evolve over time.

As elaborated in the ethics section, interviewing children presents a range of challenges. To address some of these, we made deliberate choices, such as incorporating materials from the intervention, to support children's participation. However, although materials and prompts supported children's participation, they may have constrained the range of their responses. Open-ended and follow-up questions helped mitigate this, but some influence likely remained. Interviews were conducted with pairs of children, which sometimes caused distractions but also allowed them to complement each other, highlighting both the advantages and limitations of this approach (Heary and Hennessy, 2006). Furthermore, it is worth questioning whether interviewing young children was the most effective way to address our research question. One of our aims was to invite children to share their perspectives, and interviews provided a space for them to do so. However, the study could have been strengthened by incorporating observational data (Folque, 2010). Although the interviewers spent 3 days in the centers and participated in SELMA activities, these observations were not intended for analysis or interpretation.

8 Conclusion

This study examined how 5-year-old children experienced the content and teacher implementation of the SELMA intervention through semi-structured interviews analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Children responded most positively to hands-on activities, which encouraged active participation, social interaction, and repeated practice. Experiences with reading sessions and pedagogical videos varied, often depending on how the activities were implemented. When teachers did not facilitate dialogue and engagement, children described the activities as passive and less interesting.

The findings show that the intervention's multimodal design supported learning across activities, with children applying and describing key concepts such as collaboration, optimism, and practice in new contexts beyond the sessions themselves.

A key contribution of this study is that children were not only participants but also attentive observers of their learning experiences. They described what made activities engaging or not and showed an ability to reflect on how they learned. This suggests that young children can provide valuable insights into the pedagogical conditions that support meaningful learning. These findings highlight the importance of child-centered, responsive teaching practices in line with principles of playful learning (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009) and suggest that children's perspectives should be considered a relevant source of knowledge in the design and evaluation of SEL interventions.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Grammarly and similar software were used to spell-check and improve the language.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Karyn Allee, Mercer University, United States

Reviewed by: Keetam Alkahtani, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

Suna Ozcan, The Ohio State University, United States