We Put the Free Play Question to the Research: What Accelerometers on 79 Preschoolers Actually Showed; Does a Structured Session Take Free Play Away? One Study Measured It; Free Play or a Structured Class: The Trade-Off Parents Assume Is Not the One That Exists; 90 Minutes Out of 84 Waking Hours: Where a Structured Session Should and Should Not Sit; The Research Argument Against Us, Printed in Full

The common worry among parents is that enrolling a child in a structured session replaces valuable free play and might even suppress natural movement. One controlled study, using accelerometers on preschoolers, found the opposite for 5-year-olds: the partly structured group was significantly more physically active than the free play group. This does not mean more structure is always better. It means the perceived trade-off between free play and structured activities is not always the one that exists, and the actual numbers provide a clearer perspective.

We put the free play question to the research: what accelerometers on 79 preschoolers actually showed; does a structured session take free play away? One study measured it; free play or a structured class: the trade-off parents assume is not the one that exists; 90 minutes out of 84 waking hours: where a structured session should and should not sit; the research argument against us, printed in full.

The 50-word answer

The common worry is that a structured session replaces free play and suppresses movement. One controlled study that measured it found the opposite for 5-year-olds: the partly structured group was significantly more physically active than the free play group. That does not mean more structure is always better. It means the trade-off parents assume is not the trade-off that exists.

Why we are writing this

As engineer parents ourselves, my partner and I founded Champions Studio because we saw a need for evidence-informed child development programs here in Jaipur. The single most common and understandable hesitation we encounter from parents, especially those who have thoughtfully engaged with child development research, is the concern that structured activities might usurp the irreplaceable benefits of free play. It is a fair objection, grounded in the valid understanding that children are often over-scheduled and over-instructed. We share that concern. This article is our attempt to address it head-on, by looking at what the research actually says, including the parts that argue against our own approach. We believe in transparency and equipping parents like you, Ji, with the objective information needed to make the best decisions for your children.

The study, described plainly

In 2019, Tortella and colleagues published a study in Frontiers in Public Health that directly addressed physical activity in structured versus free play settings for preschoolers [1]. The study involved 79 children, aged 4 and 5 years old, divided into two groups: a partly structured group of 46 children and a free play group of 33. Over ten weeks, each group participated in one-hour sessions, once a week, on an outdoor playground in Italy between March and May 2017. Each child wore an accelerometer for one hour during the first week and again in the last week to measure physical activity levels. The partly structured group engaged in sessions that combined structured activities with periods of free play, while the free play group participated in unstructured play only.

The primary finding was a significant difference in physical activity level between the two groups among the 5-year-olds, specifically in favour of the partly structured group. This suggests that, for this specific age cohort and context, a degree of structure actually led to more movement.

It is important to acknowledge the honest limits of this study in the same breath. With 79 children, the sample size is relatively small. The study was conducted outdoors in Italy during spring, which might not directly translate to all indoor or different climate conditions. It measured movement intensity, not broader developmental outcomes such as learning, happiness, or creativity. Furthermore, the 4-year-olds in the study did not show the same significant difference in physical activity. One study is, of course, just one study, and its findings should be interpreted within these specific parameters.

The case against us, printed in full

We believe in presenting a complete picture, and that includes articulating the strongest arguments that challenge the very concept of structured early childhood programs. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical report, The Power of Play (Yogman et al., Pediatrics 2018), which was reaffirmed in January 2025, is unambiguous [2]. It highlights that play with parents and peers is fundamental for developing crucial skills like executive function, problem-solving, and resilience. Critically, it explicitly warns that early childhood programs are often pressured to incorporate more didactic components and reduce playful learning. This warning is directly aimed at organisations like ours, and we take it seriously. We agree with the AAP's stance that such pressures can be detrimental to a child's holistic development.

Furthermore, when considering physical activity, the World Health Organization (WHO) provides clear guidelines [3]. For children aged 1 to 2 years and 3 to 4 years, they should accumulate at least 180 minutes of varied physical activity across the day. No single 45-minute structured session, regardless of its design, can solely fulfill this daily requirement. This reinforces that any structured activity should be seen as a complement, not a replacement, for the broader spectrum of play and movement a child needs.

So where does the line sit

This is where the numbers become important, Ji, rather than just abstract adjectives. A child aged 3 to 6 years is awake for roughly 12 hours a day. Two structured sessions a week, each 45 minutes long, amount to 90 minutes. When considered against approximately 84 waking hours in a week, this is a little under 2 percent of your child's waking time. This reframes the question: it is not about free play versus structure, but rather, what is this specific 2 percent giving your child that the other 98 percent cannot, and what is the other 98 percent meant for?

Our position at Champions Studio is clear: the 2 percent should be dedicated to activities that the 98 percent of a child's week—spent in free play, with family, or in school—cannot readily provide. This includes access to specialised equipment, the focused attention of a coach observing for specific behavioural or skill development, or the unique dynamics of interacting with a consistent group of eight to ten children at a similar developmental stage. Crucially, this 2 percent should never be considered the main source of a child's play or physical activity.

There are clear warning signs if a structured session has tipped too far towards instruction and away from playful learning. If you observe children queuing more than they are actively moving, or a coach talking significantly more than the children are doing, those are indicators. If the same drill is repeated without any visible progression over several weeks, or if your child cannot articulate anything specific they enjoyed or learned, these might suggest the session is not optimally engaging or beneficial. We, as parents, would not enrol our own children in sessions that exhibit these characteristics.

How to judge the session in front of you in one visit

To help you evaluate any structured session, including ours, we suggest a five-item observation list you can run during a trial. These questions are designed to move beyond general impressions and focus on tangible benefits for your child:

1. How many minutes is my child actually moving or actively engaged, versus passively watching or waiting?
2. How many turns does my child get to attempt the activity, rather than observing others?
3. Is there a visible next step or progression being introduced, or does this session feel identical to what might have happened last month?
4. Does the coach provide specific, actionable feedback on one particular thing your child did, or is the praise generic, such as 'good job'?
5. Does the child choose anything at all during the session, even small elements like which colour to use or which area to play in?

What we do with this

At Champions Studio, our approach is informed by these considerations. Our sessions are carefully designed for small groups of 8 to 10 children per batch. We work towards clear, age-appropriate milestones, typically spaced 4 to 6 weeks apart, allowing for observable progression through our five levels: Explorer, Builder, Performer, Competitor, and Champion. Importantly, our sessions deliberately include unstructured segments, acknowledging the vital role of free exploration and child-led play within a structured environment. We openly explain the rationale behind these segments.

Our programs cater to children aged 6 months to 8 years. We view our offerings as complementary to both school-based learning and the essential free play at home. We are not a replacement for either, but rather an enhancement, providing a curated environment for specific developmental progress. We admit that a session which tips into excessive instruction is one we would not endorse, even if it were our own.

Frequently asked questions

What type of play should a 2 year old be doing?

Two-year-olds benefit immensely from a variety of play types, primarily focusing on free play. This includes open-ended exploration with toys, sensory play, outdoor play, and imaginative scenarios. They also thrive with interactive play alongside parents or caregivers, fostering language and social skills, as well as developing early gross and fine motor abilities through activities like stacking blocks or running.

Is it okay to let a 2 year old play by themselves?

Yes, it is perfectly healthy and beneficial for a 2-year-old to engage in independent play, provided they are in a safe and supervised environment. Solo play encourages self-sufficiency, creativity, problem-solving, and the ability to entertain themselves. While interaction is crucial, periods of independent exploration are vital for developing concentration and internal motivation.

What are the key differences between free play and structured play?

Free play is child-led, spontaneous, and open-ended, with no specific rules or pre-determined outcomes, allowing children to explore their interests. Structured play, conversely, has specific rules, goals, and often adult guidance, such as organised sports, art classes, or games with clear instructions. Both types contribute uniquely to a child's development.

Is structured play bad for toddlers?

Structured play is not inherently bad for toddlers; the key lies in balance and appropriateness. Excessive or overly rigid structured activities can limit a toddler's natural inclination to explore and learn through self-directed play. However, gentle, age-appropriate structured activities can introduce new skills, foster social interaction, and provide a sense of routine, provided they remain playful and flexible.

How much free play does a 3 year old need?

While there is no universally fixed number, experts generally recommend that 3-year-olds have ample opportunities for free play, ideally several hours throughout the day. This should include both indoor and outdoor activities, allowing for creative, imaginative, and physical exploration. The emphasis is on child-directed engagement, where they choose the activity and pace.

Can a child have too many classes?

Yes, a child can certainly have too many classes. Over-scheduling can lead to stress, fatigue, and a lack of essential downtime for free play, which is critical for creativity, emotional regulation, and self-directed learning. It is important to prioritise quality over quantity, ensuring that structured activities genuinely benefit the child without overwhelming their schedule.

At what age does structured activity start making sense?

Gentle, play-based structured activities can begin as early as toddlerhood, introducing concepts like turn-taking or following simple instructions in a fun environment. More formal, skill-focused structured activities, such as specific sports or musical instrument lessons, typically start making sense around age 4 to 6, when children have developed better attention spans and motor coordination.

Does structured activity reduce creativity?

If poorly implemented or excessive, structured activity can potentially limit opportunities for spontaneous, imaginative play that fosters creativity. However, well-designed structured activities can also stimulate creativity by introducing new tools, techniques, or concepts that children can then integrate into their free play. The balance between guided exploration and open-ended innovation is key.

If you want to run the five-item list on us

We invite you to experience Champions Studio for yourself. Book a trial session for Rs 500 on WhatsApp at https://wa.me/919509671632, bring the five questions above, and use them to observe our session. We are confident in our approach. If the answers you find are not good enough for your child, do not enrol. That is the entire point of a trial.

Sources

1. Tortella, P., Magnano, M., Catalano, T., & Di Vita, G. (2019). Physical activity in preschool children: A comparison between free-play and semi-structured play sessions in an outdoor playground. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 189.
2. Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics, 142(3), e20182058.
3. World Health Organization. (2022). Physical Activity.