ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

I can support David's call for a holistic look at play and an openness to finding meaning that is not reduced to theory already printed in books. Common sense and the teacher's intuitions come from broad experiences of great value. I also support the new emphasis on intentionality for teachers of young children. For a long while we have treated play as recess, a time where children are just children and a time for teachers to take a well deserved break from the children. However, if we do not observe carefully and think about the significance of play we will not be articulate advocates for its survival, which is in great jeopardy with high stakes testing looming everywhere. Play is no less than self-directed learning. Any school that desires to have a play based curriculum will need to express themselves with a professional level discourse about play.

Sometimes it is just as simple as looking. Just watch how kids play without adult intervention in developing countires. It often comes quite naturally. In American culture, it seems that we are not comfortable with a subject unless we can derive its meaning from a text book evaluation. I'm not advocating ignorance, I'm just hoping people can relax long enough to not feel they have to reinvent their entire concept of play overnight.

If we value play isn't it helpful to know what function it serves?
If we want to avoid assuming that our perspective as tantamount to the child's perspective, don't we still need to use our adult intelligence to figure out the difference?
If we want to know what the child's wants is it really so simply as looking?

Interesting observations, but do we really need to qualify the reasons for play to legitimize its presence in a child's life? Everyone has their own reason for jumping on the bandwagon of outdoor play, but I seriously feel that all of our good intentions can lead us to an adult’s perspective – not a child’s. We are slowly getting out of a dark period of play that was almost entirely defined by kinesthetic activities through commercial products. I would hate to see a repeat of this scenario. Just watch and listen. Kids will show you what they want.

Correction:

Sorry, The last few sentences in my post above should read:

In the process he still learns about the mass of the bowling pin, something he was not likely to learn if he had been serious about using the ball. So the "survial value" of play is the way it allows us to change the goals and thereby study the means in negotiating the physical and social world.
George Forman, President
Videatives, Inc.
www.videatives.com
See What Children Know™

Play does provide a penalty-free context for learning. But Stuart Brown’s example of playful goats that sometimes fall off cliffs confuses me. I presume he is saying that in spite of the death toll for goats that play, playfulness still transfers across generations. But in this example Brown does not specify how play adds survival value, only death value. Elsewhere in his book he tells us of learning through play. Personally I prefer to view play as goal-free (a variation on penalty-free). When children enter their playful mode they are having fun with the process of how things happen. So if a child gets stuck making one thing happen, such as knocking over two bowling pins by rolling a ball, he will kick the pins over with his foot. After all, he is just playing. In the process he still learns about the mass of the bowling pin, something he was likely to learn if he had been serious about using the ball. So the “survial value” of play is the way it allows us to change the goals and thereby study the means in negotiating the physical and social world.
George Forman, President
Videatives, Inc.
www.videatives.com
See What Children Know™