Abstract

Playful approaches to learning criminology may seem counterintuitive. The topics covered in criminology can be confronting and serious. Play, on the other hand, is generally considered to be pleasurable and fun. Yet the emerging literature on playful learning in higher education suggests that it can help support student well-being while developing the resilience and innovative thinking that are necessary for careers in the criminal justice system. This research draws on quantitative and qualitative data provided by student responses to surveys aimed at gauging their perception of the classroom experience and their development of critical thinking skills. While playful approaches to all topics would not be appropriate, playful learning appears to help create an environment where students can engage with complex topics in a supportive learning environment.

Keywords

Criminology, play, well-being, pedagogy

Introduction

Playful approaches to learning criminology may seem counterintuitive. The topics are decidedly serious but many of the attributes that playful learning supports – pluralistic thinking, relationships with others, and managing with uncertainty (Nørgård & Whitton, 2024) – are essential for successful careers in the criminal justice system. In 2023, a research project evaluated the impact of having physical artifacts in the classroom for students to touch and talk to each other about, as a strategy to support student engagement and enrich the classroom experience. The course coordinator selected objects to act as catalysts, encouraging students to work collaboratively, ask questions, develop hypotheses, and normalise the idea that we might not have all the answers. At the end of the lesson, students were surveyed to determine whether the objects supported engagement and the development of critical thinking skills. Objects were used at two different points in the semester. At the end of the semester, students were surveyed again, this time to rank all the lessons from across the semester that they would best remember (retention of learning). The two lessons with objects were ranking highly, but so was another lesson that did not involve a physical object.

In the other highly-ranked lesson, students had to apply a juvenile risk assessment to multiple profiles to determine their risk of ongoing offending. Versions of this juvenile risk assessment are used in several jurisdictions in Australia and the United States. The teacher developed biographies based on famous actors and musicians, but students did not know this when they completed the activity. Rather, the individuals were identified as Child A, Child B, et cetera. Each group was responsible for sharing their score with the class and determining if their person would continue to offend. After each group presented, it was revealed which celebrities they had evaluated. Students laughed and expressed disbelief; it was a playful moment. The exercise also helped to support their ability to think critically about the risk assessment and see examples of the age–crime curve. The age–crime curve is the theory that most offending begins and peaks during the adolescent period, then rapidly drops off as the brain matures and people develop stronger, pro-social obligations (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). Most of the celebrities who ranked as high risk, meaning the risk assessment identified that they would continue to offend, did not offend as adults. Some who were low risk went on to be violent offenders, and others continued to offend across their life. For this activity, despite completing the risk assessment correctly, the risk assessment and the students ‘failed’ to identify who would be life-long offenders. However, we failed in a social setting where we could laugh together but also critically reflect on why we could both get it right but also get it wrong. This created a “positive construction of failure and the creation of learning environments where students feel able to fail”, which is an important aspect of playful learning (Whitton, 2018, p. 3).

This finding suggests it was the ethos of the lesson – the playfulness – that supported students’ engagement and learning. The objects used in the classroom were not only a means for engagement, but part of a larger, playful approach to learning. This article first establishes the current ‘state of play’ in higher education, as well as gaps in the literature. It then looks at the quantitative and qualitative data regarding students’ perception of engagement and critical thinking when objects are used in the classroom to support learning. The findings suggest that, where appropriate, playful learning can support an environment where students engage with complex topics in a less confronting way. However, they also suggest that students may not readily identify the development of critical thinking skills when material is approached playfully and that playful approaches to serious topics must still be adopted with caution.

What is play?

Play is something that many of us intuitively understand and recognise yet it is quite difficult to define. One approach identifies six elements: “anticipation, surprise, pleasure, understanding, strength, and poise” (Eberle, 2014, p. 221). When these elements intersect, empathy, resilience, and one’s capacity to learn is supported (Eberle, 2014). Given the relationship between play and learning, in early childhood education play is approached as a crucial foundation to learning (Wood, 2013). However, it has value throughout our lives. Play helps people develop skills to cope with the unexpected and with challenging situations (Koeners & Francis, 2020). Playfulness, as an individual attribute, is a skill that allows people to understand their everyday situations so that they become entertaining, more interesting or engaging, and/or provide intellectual stimulation, particularly where these are not self-evident attributes of the situations (Proyer, 2017). Playfulness is strongly linked to well-being in adults (Farley et al., 2021). A study of 898 university students suggests that “playfulness serves a strong adaptive function with university students” (Magnuson & Barnett, 2013, p. 129). This study did not look at the role of educators in cultivating a playful approach to learning, rather it focused on students’ personal playfulness. Yet we know that, more generally, playfulness can be cultivated in adults to improve well-being, as Parker et al.’s (2023) work has demonstrated.

Student well-being in higher education is emerging as a significant concern for universities. Criminology in particular seems to present unique mental health challenges to students. Not only is the material often confronting, but up to 59% of students in the similar degree of Criminal Justice on urban campuses in the United States had experienced previous victimisation – this number includes property crime (Eren et al., 2019, p. 519). Being a victim of a crime does not necessarily equate with experiencing long-term trauma (Cusack et al., 2019). However, course “content can invoke feelings of anxiety, act as triggers for part traumatic experiences, or even cause direct trauma due to the nature of the subject matter” (Ware et al., 2024, p. 16). An Australia-based study of students enrolled in professional courses (such as law, in which approximately half our criminology students are dual-enrolled) found “distress rates to be much higher in the tertiary student population than in age matched population data” (Leahy et al., 2010, p. 615).

To address these potential issues, the criminology program at the University of Newcastle embedded a whole-of-program approach to student well-being in 2024. The well-being program was designed to start a conversation about the impact of being exposed to distressing materials and situations, how to recognise early signs of vicarious trauma, and where to seek support. Another aspect was the day-to-day strategies that might help students when being exposed to confronting content and that, when they move into stressful working environments, they can continue to draw on. One perhaps unexpected strategy, which was not part of the initial well-being project, may be to cultivate playful approaches to complex topics in the classroom – encouraging students to build relationships with peers and accept that they may not immediately have solutions to problems, but should not be afraid to tackle complex issues.

Playful learning in higher education is a growing area of interest but remains under-theorised, with few examples in the literature of the potential role of play in classrooms outside North America or Europe (Whitton, 2022). This may be because there is little evidence that play improves students’ academic performance (Proyer & Tandler, 2020), which is a common measure of success in higher education. Existing research on playful learning in higher education tends to be heavily focused on limited forms of play. A scoping study covering 20 years of articles examining play in higher education reveals a strong focus on gamification and games, with most research taking place in STEM programs (Whitton, 2022). The emerging literature related to teaching criminology suggests that gamification may support student engagement (Gehring et al., 2024). However, gamification can further normalise competition-driven learning focused on external validation, through the use of badges, leaderboards, and points (Rohan et al., 2020). Competition is not necessarily a negative thing and can be a powerful motivator. However, it can also lead to students focusing on the game aspects (badges, points, et cetera) at the expense of learning (Hadi Mogavi et al., 2022).

While it is the dominant form of play in the literature, gamification is just one aspect of playful learning. Nørgård et al. (2017) developed a signature pedagogy that includes surface, deep, and implicit structures for learning to understand play in higher education. This model relies on ‘surface play structures’ which the facilitator creates by incorporating artifacts and structuring the activity to provide challenging, yet accessible experiences. Research suggests that objects can function as catalysts in the classroom, fostering student engagement (Jørgensen et al., 2023). Using physical objects also seems to increase students’ retention of learning (Novak & Schwan, 2021). The ‘deep play structure’ involves novelty, collaboration, and active engagement while the ‘implicit play structures’ support democratic participation, acceptance of risk and failure, and encourage intrinsic motivation (See Figure 1 in Nørgård et al., 2017, p. 11). Using an unexpected event or context can unsettle students’ assumptions, opening them up to an incremental process of thinking about topics in a new way (Brookfield, 2011). ‘Deep play structure’ aligns with strategies to foster critical thinking skills. Developing students’ ability to think critically is one of the key roles of universities (Bezanilla et al., 2021). At its core, critical thinking involves the ability to consider an issue from multiple perspectives, a willingness to incorporate new evidence, and being able to develop novel solutions to problems (Willingham, 2007). Brookfield (2011) suggests that this can be developed in the classroom by approaching critical thinking as a social process that is grounded in a specific context. Respectful dialogue and accepting compromise seem to align with ‘implicit play structures’. In other words, playful learning includes tools (such as the physical objects used it the classroom, as well as stimulations); specific techniques (like solving problems); as well as tactics or mechanisms which support a playful classroom – such as surprise, humour, or mystery (Whitton, 2018, p. 5).

Methods

Criminal Justice in Practice is a required, second-year course at the University of Newcastle (UON) in Newcastle, Australia. In 2023, it had 201 students enrolled. This course develops the student’s ability to analyse issues relating to the criminal justice system. At UON, the entire cohort of 201 students attend an hour-long lecture, then smaller tutorials throughout the week. The research took place in the scheduled weekly tutorials, which varied in size from 19–41 students. The experimental tutorial was repeated six times with unique groups of students and the same teacher. No changes were made to the course material across the lessons. Much of the existing literature on teaching criminology reflects teaching in the United States – mirroring the greater number of criminologists teaching in the United States (Burns et al., 2024). This means teaching and learning practices in criminology in Australia have not been as thoroughly considered (Burns et al., 2024). Further, the number of students enrolled at UON promises a larger pool of respondents than most existing studies that evaluate teaching approaches in criminology in the United States, where the average class size is below 20 students (Rothe & Collins, 2013; Belasco, 2024).

On the first day of class, one week before the first tutorial, all students were advised that the upcoming tutorial was part of a research project with human ethics approval.^[1] The project with its associated surveys was explained verbally, and students were provided with a participant information sheet through Canvas (Learning Management System) before the tutorial. Students were not required to complete the survey to participate in the class, and responses could not be linked to individual students. There was no incentive provided to participate. Question Pro hosted the survey, which meets the university’s ethical requirements for data storage and confidentiality. Quantitative data through five-point Likert scales and qualitative data via prompts or a ‘free write section’ were collected.

The first survey evaluated students’ learning experience immediately after the first tutorial. It was deliberately brief to ensure high completion rates and produce a focused data set. It collected four variables (gender, number of years at university, self-identification as a minority, and first-generation university student). The survey’s six Likert scale questions were ranked from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’, with a neutral option. ‘Strongly Agree’ was weighted as five points.

In addition to the Likert scale questions, there were two optional qualitative questions: ‘What did you like about the tutorial today?’ and ‘Thinking about the tutorial today, what could be improved?’ These were included to allow students a greater degree of voice in the research, to provide insights to help better understand the Likert data, and to improve teaching for future courses. In the final week of the semester, students were invited once again to complete a survey reflecting on the course as a whole. Here, they were encouraged to share the tutorial they remembered most from the year. This question was designed to measure both self-reported retention of material and, by extension, interest in material. Observational notes of student behaviour in the classroom, in particular relating to collaboration and group discussions, were also taken during and immediately after class. Combining surveys and observational notes helps support more effective measures of learning (Evans, 2020).

Designing the classroom experience

Upon entering the tutorial classroom, most students wanted to spread out across the room; the teacher directed them to sit at one of the seven tables that had an object on them. Groups ranged from four to seven students. They were informed that they could move after the activity. Each of the student groups received either an object, or an object in a sealed plastic bag with minimal labelling aside from a price tag and a set of initials. The objects in this instance were: a brick, a lock of hair, dirt, a worn sweatshirt, a letter, a Christmas card, and a 12×12 inch (about 30x30cm) painting. These artifacts are ‘surface play structures’, designed to draw people into the activity in an accessible way (Nørgård et al., 2017). Students were asked to discuss with one another and speculate what the object might be. During this part of the activity, students laughed, looked puzzled, asked each other questions, and some reached out to the other groups to see what objects they had. They picked up the object, passed it to each other, and discussed what it could be. These interactions align with ‘deep play structures’ which foster deliberation, engagement, and collaborative learning (Nørgård et al., 2017).

After groups developed their hypotheses, they shared with the class what they thought their object might be and what the price tag could mean. Responses were varied but included things like ‘evidence’, ‘something from a crime scene’, or ‘something relating to a criminal’. Students were initially shy and reluctant to volunteer their thoughts. The teacher encouraged them to consider if crime scene evidence normally had a price tag associated with it. After a little more discussion, the teacher assured them that they were on the right track – the object is related to a criminal and the initials relate to a specific criminal. At this point, across five of the six tutorials, the group with the handwritten letter with the initials ‘TB’ speculated that the letter was linked to Ted Bundy. In another tutorial, students with the painting and the initials ‘JWG’ asked if their painting was linked to the John Wayne Gacy aka ‘the Clown Killer’. The teacher revealed that this was correct, and that all the objects had a link to a serial killer. The remaining groups were encouraged to revisit their object and try to determine who was associated with the object. At this point, students became extremely excited – talking to each other, some groups volunteering their hypothesis regarding who their object was associated with. This stage of the tutorial aligns with the notion of ‘implicit play’ – everyone has failed initially at identifying the objects, but they worked together to come up with the solution. The motivation seemed no longer to be to get the answer correct for the teacher, but to share knowledge with each other. There were organic, peer-to-peer discussions emerging in the classroom, rather than the teacher having to encourage them to speak to one another.

Next, students learned that none of these were actual pieces of murderabilia^[2] but replicas based on what is available for sale or had been for sale over the previous four years (at the time this activity was first used in a classroom). The decision not to use actual objects reflects the recognition that while the element of surprise can support learning, more extremely shocking material can be distressing and undermine playful possibilities (Eberle, 2013). Further, these objects can be very expensive. Replicas can be adopted at a low cost, lowering boundaries to adopting this type of activity without any negative impact on the learning experience.

In one class, a student had heard of murderabilia and was able to start the class discussion. In the other tutorials, the concept of selling artifacts associated with serial killers, or infamous murders, was introduced to students for the first time. At this point, it was shared with students that several victim advocacy groups oppose this practice. As a group, the class discussed laws in place to minimise people’s ability to profit from crime – such as Son-of-Sam laws in the United States and Australia’s laws that regulate the proceeds from crime and literary profits. This was further developed by linking murderabilia with the notion of deviance. Students had to discuss what contexts make this form of consumerism deviant and when (or if) the criminal justice system needs to have a role in regulating it.

Thus far in the class, the teacher and the lesson guided students towards a position in line with victim advocacy groups that want this practice completely banned. Because critical thinking skills and negotiation between parties are important in criminology and in the criminal justice system, student groups were tasked with crafting opposing arguments. This led to lively debate and sophisticated discussions of how to satiate people’s interest in true crime, while also supporting victims. The teacher had an active role in encouraging students to consider points made by the opposing sides more deeply – encouraging compromise and a recognition that there might be sticking points which people would not negotiate.

Findings and discussion

There were approximately 176 students in the tutorials during the activity. Of those, 133 started and 109 completed a Likert five-point survey with two qualitative prompts: an 82% completion rate. Respondents were overwhelming female (80%) with 5% self-identifying as being part of a minority group. This reflects the demographic patterns of the larger criminology cohort at the University of Newcastle, and criminology programs more generally in Australia (McNab, 2019). Approximately 55% of respondents were first-generation university students and all had a year or more of university experience. None of the variables produced a statistically significant correlation, but this may be due to the sample group’s homogeneity and lack of variance in the responses.

Qualitative data was reviewed in its entirety for themes, then codes were developed. Ninety-one students responded to the prompt “what did you enjoy in the tutorial today?” The key themes in relation to the prompt were ‘engagement’ at 51%, ‘critical thinking’ at 24%, ‘material aspects’ at 17%, and ‘teacher’ at 8%. Some statements were coded for multiple themes. For example, the following statement would be coded for ‘engagement’ and ‘critical thinking’: “It was engaging and made me critically analyse the material from a different standpoint than I usually would.” For the prompt “Thinking about the tutorial today, what could be improved?” 61 students responded. These were reviewed in their entirety and then coded to reflect the themes. In this case, ‘nothing’ occurred most frequently at 56%, followed by ‘time’ at 27%, ‘more materials’ at 6%, and concerns about the ‘physical space’ or ‘group work’ in general represented 5% each of respondents.

Student classroom experience

Responses demonstrated agreement with the statement “the activity with the object enhanced my experience in the classroom” with 91% responding either ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’. As noted previously, the most common qualitative code for the prompt “what did you enjoy about the tutorial today?” was ‘engagement’ at 51%. This triangulation of data helps moderate the potential positive bias that the Likert scale questions could produce. One student noted the lesson was “a really hands on, engaging lesson that promotes engagement of everyone.” Another shared: “I like how interactive it was with the murderabilia and lots of group discussion.” From observations in the classroom, it was apparent that the students did not feel comfortable in the space when the lesson first began. The students were spread across the space, and few interacted with each other. When students were encouraged to group together for the activity, they were also given permission to move as soon as the activity was done, though none of them did. Qualitative feedback from students supported these observations: “I was intimidated initially and felt at ease almost straight away” and “the interaction of it. It was an ice breaker and educational all in one.”

 Students noted that the activity promoted engagement not only in the course content but also in relation to their peers. One explained: “I really enjoyed the material workshop as it allowed me to connect with my peers” and another similarly shared: “[it was] engaging, everyone could talk and interact.” Other students shared that being able to have discussions in small groups, then larger discussions with other groups and the teacher was helpful in creating a welcoming learning environment. One student described the best part of the class as “the inclusive aspect of whole room.” This is a significant finding, as other research demonstrates that a sense of connection to peers and the broader institution (here represented as the teacher) increases student well-being and achievement (Kutsyuruba et al., 2015).

A common theme across the qualitative feedback was the role the physical object had in facilitating the classroom experience. Approximately 17% of the qualitative responses directly identified that having a material object to engage with enhanced their learning experience. They noted the best part of the tutorial was “the hands-on part – it helps make it easier to learn” and another shared: “I loved the hands-on items, made the tutorial very interesting.” Still another noted that the objects helped engage their learning: “physical examples/props cool and useful!” Several students shared the qualitative feedback that the experience of physically touching the object enhanced their learning experience. These are compelling responses that suggest engaging with physical objects can pique the interest of students and foster an engaging classroom dynamic. This aligns with the work of Nørgård et al. (2017), which notes that surface play structures, like objects, can help create an environment for deeper forms of learning to occur. It also suggests physical objects might have strategic value in terms of fostering a more inclusive classroom environment. This was the most pronounced outcome from both the Likert scales and the additional qualitative data: it supported students’ engagement. Student engagement is a precursor for some of university’s key goals, in particular the development of critical thinking skills (Bezanilla et al., 2021; Brookfield, 2011).

Critical thinking skills

Critical thinking activities in the classroom involve “students learning to recognise or develop an argument, use evidence in support of that argument, draw reasoned conclusions, and use information to solve problems. Examples of critical thinking skills are interpreting, analysing, evaluating, explaining, sequencing, reasoning, comparing, questioning, inferring, hypothesising, appraising, testing and generalising” (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d., para. 5). This was a key goal of the activity and while 86% felt that it helped them develop critical thinking skills, its Likert scale average was slightly (4.35%) lower than engagement. While 52% (n=55) of respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that the activity helped them develop critical thinking skills, and 34 % (n=36) ‘agreed’, this category did have a degree of variation. For this question, 13% (n=14) responded neutrally while 2% (n=2) disagreed that the activity enhanced critical thinking skills. The qualitative feedback helps provide a nuanced interpretation of this data. As noted previously, after coding the qualitative responses for themes, 24% of respondents noted that critical thinking skills were the best thing about the tutorial. Students shared their impression of the tutorial: “it really helped stimulate me and help me understand deviance and crime.” Another shared: “the interactive aspect allowed us to use critical thinking skills in an interesting and engaging manner.” Here, students are making links between the activity, theoretical concepts (like deviance), and their critical thinking skills. Yet this activity was fun, and ‘playing’ in the classroom with objects around a topic that is highly glamourised might not fit every student’s understanding of what critical thinking entails. In the future, it would be helpful to provide a definition of critical thinking, so all students approach the activity and learning goals with a similar understanding.

Coded themes for the prompt “Thinking about the tutorial today, what could be improved?” found 17 responders requested more time for the tutorial and 4 requested more resources. This underscores that students needed resources and time to develop the critical thinking skills that a university aspires to foster. It also could suggest that students developed an interest in the topic and wanted to spend more time exploring it, diving deeper into the material both individually and as a class. An additional three students noted issues with the physical space of the classroom: a screen that was difficult to see and an overactive heater. This feedback emphasizes that learning takes time and students, even when they are enjoying an activity, need the right environment to fully reach learning goals. It also demonstrates that students learn in a variety of ways and hands-on, group activities are not the ideal learning approach for all students.

End of semester survey

For the end of semester survey, students were asked to recall the 2 tutorials out of 11 which were most memorable. Students were not provided with a list. Ninety-nine students completed the survey, with most listing two tutorials (177 total responses). The assumption of the study was that material objects were the lynchpins which supported student engagement, that having these objects to touch could support critical thinking and retention of course material. This was supported by the findings, with the two lessons with physical objects being the most and third most memorable. Yet students were flagging other tutorials, the playful tutorials, where they did not touch anything – there was no extra tool supporting engagement. This suggests that the material objects used to support learning may sit within a larger framework of playful learning that students responded to, but that playful learning can occur without it.

Returning to the signature pedagogy discussed earlier, for the activities that students flagged as the most memorable, all these elements of playful learning were present. For the first activity, using mock objects sold as murderabilia, students touched the objects in bags and discussed them with their peers. The price tag and initials were a ‘clue’ to help them solve the puzzle. Students developed hypotheses, shared them, and re-evaluated their ideas as the teacher gave them additional information or clues. Finally, the reveal regarding what the objects were was surprising. “The element of novelty and surprise […] and the imagination of possibilities is distinctly playful” (Nørgård et al., 2017). A similar design underpins the other two activities that students flagged.

The activity on punishment used a combination of artifacts from a local museum (ball and chain, convict era handcuffs) for students to touch and discuss as well as a ‘name that punishment’ game. Students worked together to identify a historic form of punishment, then had to link it to the larger goals of punishment (rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, et cetera). This activity was designed like a game, but students did not earn points. The emphasis was on the collaborative development of hypotheses rather than individuals ‘getting it right’. In the feedback, students did note the ‘objects’, ‘props’, and ‘shackles’ as being particularly memorable.

The risk assessment discussed in the introduction functioned as a simulation exercise; students were taught how to complete the risk assessment and encouraged to do this in groups. The task was initially approached ‘seriously’ but became playful as each biography was linked to a celebrity. This interpretation is inferring that the lessons that the teacher found the most playful to teach were also perceived by students as being playful. Because the study was not designed to measure playfulness, it did not ask students directly if playful activities were more engaging or memorable. The second most memorable tutorial was the last tutorial of the semester and this may have meant it was fresh in students’ minds. This tutorial covered miscarriages of justice and serial killers who are active in health care settings. Several students mentioned in the qualitative feedback that these more titillating and unusual crimes are what drew them to criminology.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this research. Most notable is that the survey instrument was not designed to directly compare a lecture versus a tutorial. Future research that compares these could clarify whether the topic or the mode of delivery is more significant. This will help clarify the impact of the playful lessons on the classroom experience. The bulk of this data is self-reported. For the first survey, students may have felt pressured to respond positively as it was the first class of the semester. However, playful ‘icebreakers’ are common during the first class of a semester, which may have moderated a potential sense of obligation. A more robust approach might include a more substantial external evaluation of student understanding of the material. For example, this project did not have ethical clearance to evaluate students’ answers in the final examination to determine if playful approaches impact final assessments; this could help determine if students are remembering the novelty of the learning experience or the content. However, focusing on the performance of students may overlook other important benchmarks of success – such as a sense of belonging (Weatherton & Schussler, 2021).

This research underscores that not every student will enjoy playful approaches. For some students, playful tactics, particularly if they rely on sharing ideas verbally and uncertainty about subject matter, may not be the best way to support learning. Because of these considerations, blanket teaching policies (playful or otherwise) are not recommended. As Mardell et al. (2019, p. 234) observe in school-aged classrooms, “you cannot simply ‘install’ learning through play in a school with, for example, a new curriculum that has more math games or has children spending more time on computers.” Even with these limitations, these findings suggest that playful learning – and a physical object can be a mediator for playful learning – can provide a starting point to discuss complex topics which may support the learning of many students.

Other researchers have noted that the researchers who incorporate play into their classrooms may be inherently more playful, leading to “biased assumptions and lack of appreciation of any negative unintended consequences of the approach” (Whitton, 2018, p. 9). One way to moderate this may be for educators interested in adopting playful approaches to complete an assessment measuring adult playfulness. While there are multiple tools to measure playfulness in adults, they have not all been thoroughly evaluated, suggesting any conclusion may need to be approached cautiously (Proyer & Brauer, 2023). However, there may be utility in being aware of this potential bias before designing or implementing playful activities. Alternatively, students could be asked about their perception of the teacher’s playful engagement with the material and this could be correlated with their own experiences.

Conclusion

Students coming to university have different backgrounds, interests, and natural aptitudes for academic work (Riener & Willingham, 2010) as well as self-discipline to complete tasks. Playful approaches to learning are not going to address larger issues, such as a lack of preparedness for academic writing, or a lack of time management skills on the part of the student. However, they may provide an additional strategy to engage students, create a collaborative classroom, and encourage critical thinking.

Playful learning is also not readily viewed as supporting the development of ‘real skills’ for the workplace. This was evident in the student responses in relation to critical thinking skills. Yet playful learning may help students develop the ‘real skills’ of resilience and innovative thinking that are necessary to work in the criminal justice system. For students who are planning on careers where there are high rates of burnout, developing skills that play supports, may have a long-term positive impact. Cultivating playful approaches to complex topics in the classroom encourages students to build relationships with peers, and to accept that they may not immediately have solutions to problems, but should not be afraid to tackle complex issues.

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). Critical and creative thinking (Version 8.4). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/

Belasco, A. (2024, May 9). 29 Best colleges for criminology – 2024. College Transitions. https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-criminal-justice/

Bezanilla, M.-J., Galindo-Domínguez, H., & Poblete, M. (2021). Importance and possibilities of development of critical thinking in the university: The teacher’s perspective. REMIE: Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 20–48. https://doi.org/10.17583/remie.0.6159

Brookfield, S. D. (2011). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. John Wiley & Sons.

Burns, K. H., Loney-Howes, R., Wood, M. A., & Iliadis, M. (2024). Australian and Aotearoa scholarship of teaching and learning in criminology: A scoping review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 35(1), 56–76.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2163264

Cusack, S. E., Hicks, T. A., Bourdon, J., Sheerin, C. M., Overstreet, C. M., Kendler, K. S., Dick, D. M., & Amstadter, A. B. (2018). Prevalence and predictors of PTSD among a college sample. Journal of American College Health, 67(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1462824

Eberle, S. G. (2014). The elements of play: Toward a philosophy and definition of play. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 214–233.

Eren, C., Leyro, S., & Disha, I. (2019). It’s personal: The impact of victimization on motivations and career interests among criminal justice majors at diverse urban colleges. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 30(4), 510–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2019.1612931

Evans, C. M. (2020). Measuring student success skills: A review of the literature on collaboration, 21st century success skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607774.pdf

Farley, A., Kennedy-Behr, A., & Brown, T. (2021). An investigation into the relationship between playfulness and well-being in Australian adults: An exploratory study. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 41(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449220945311

Gehring, K. S., & Marshall, E. (2023). Ready player one: Gamification of a criminal justice course. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 34(4), 573–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2022.2130383

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552–584. https://doi.org/10.1086/227905

Joergensen, H. H., Schrøder, V., & Skovbjerg, H. M. (2022). Playful learning, space and materiality: An integrative literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.2021443

Koeners, M. P., & Francis, J. (2020). The physiology of play: Potential relevance for higher education. International Journal of Play, 9(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2020.1720128

Kutsyuruba, B., Klinger, D., & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate, school safety, and student achievement and well-being: A review of the literature. Review of Education, 3(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3043

Leahy, C. M., Peterson, R. F., Wilson, I. G., Newbury, J. W., Tonkin, A. L., & Turnbull, D. (2010). Distress levels and self-reported treatment rates for medicine, law, psychology and mechanical engineering tertiary students: Cross-sectional study. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(7), 608–615. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048671003649052

Magnuson, C. D., & Barnett, L. A. (2013). The playful advantage: How playfulness enhances coping with stress. Leisure Sciences, 35(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.761905

Mardell, B., Solis, S. L., & Bray, O. (2019). The state of play in school: Defining and promoting playful learning in formal education settings. International Journal of Play, 8(3), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2019.1684157

McNab, D. (2019). From podcasts to police: Australian university students obsessed with true crime. Seven News, https://7news.com.au/original-fyi/crime-story-investigator/from-podcasts-to-police-australian-university-students-obsessed-with-true-crime-c-549487

Mogavi, R. H., Guo, B., Zhang, Y., Haq, E.-U., Hui, P., & Ma, X. (2022). When gamification spoils your learning: A qualitative case study of gamification misuse in a language-learning app. L@S ’22: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491140.3528274

Nørgård, R. T., Toft-Nielsen, C., & Whitton, N. (2017). Playful learning in higher education: Developing a signature pedagogy. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2017.1382997

Nørgård, R. T., & Whitton, N. (2024). Introduction. In R. T. Nørgård & N. Whitton (Eds.), The playful university; philosophy, pedagogy, politics and principles (1st ed., pp. 1–19). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003354956

Novak, M., & Schwan, S. (2021). Does touching real objects affect learning? Educational Psychology Review, 33, 637–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09551-z

Parker, C., Kennedy-Behr, A., Wright, S., & Brown, T. (2022). Does the self-reported playfulness of older adults influence their wellbeing? An exploratory study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 30(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2022.2145993

Proyer, R. T. (2017). A new structural model for the study of adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an understudied individual differences variable. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.011

Proyer, R. T., & Tandler, N. (2020). An update on the study of playfulness in adolescents: Its relationship with academic performance, well-being, anxiety, and roles in bullying-type-situations. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 23(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09526-1

Proyer, R. T., & Brauer, K. (2023). Assessment of playfulness: Current challenges and overview. In W. Ruch, A.B. Bakker, L. Tay, & F. Gander, (Eds.), Psychological assessment—science and practice: Handbook of positive psychology assessment (pp. 145–161). Hogrefe Publishing.

Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 42(5), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139

Rohan, R., Pal, D., & Funilkul, S. (2020). Gamifying MOOC’s a step in the right direction?: A systematic literature review. IAIT ’20: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406601.3406607

Rothe, D. L., & Collins, V. E. (2013). Teaching criminological theory: The power of film and music. Critical Criminology, 21(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9178-3

Schmid, D. (2004). Murderabilia: Consuming fame. Media/Culture Journal, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2430

Steenberg, L. (2017). Crime and celebrity. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.26

Ware, J., Farley, H., & Grant, W. (2024). Criminal justice and criminology students’ mental health and psychological well-being: A scoping review of the available research evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2024.2389093

Weatherton, M., & Schussler, E. E. (2021). Success for all? A call to re-examine how student success is defined in higher education. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-09-0223

Whitton, N. (2018). Playful learning: tools, techniques, and tactics. Research in learning technology, 26, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2035

Whitton, N. (2022). Play and learning in adulthood: Reimagining pedagogy and the politics of education. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.

Willingham, D. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32

Wood, E. A. (2013). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum. Sage Publications.