Learning the Value of Serious Play
Russell Lathigee
Pitt
Meadows, British Columbia
Teachers are those who use themselves
as bridges,
Over which they invite their students
to cross;
Then having facilitated their crossing,
joyfully collapse,
Encouraging them to create bridges of
their own.
—Nikos Kazantzakis
Play is an exceptionally important part of the young child's
life, and the value of play in the educational process
cannot be underrated.
—Weininger, 1978, 127
Questions
“Young
children have the right to learn through play.” (B.C.
Ministry of Education, 2000, 33). There is countless
documented research indicating that play has value
at pre-school and primary levels. However, research
on play at the lower intermediate grades is significantly
sparse. Where and why has play seemingly disappeared
at the lower intermediate levels?
How,
I ask, might play be defined? How important is play
in the school system? If play does have value for students
in intermediate grades, how might it be assessed (given
that accountability to the curriculum is paramount
for the B. C. Ministry of Education, school administration,
and parents)? Do boys play differently than girls?
Do boys react differently than girls under tense situations
during play? What exactly is its value? What value
does play have at the lower intermediate level? These
were some of the questions I had which led me to my
research topic, “The Value of Serious Play.”
Serious
Play is…
Play
enables children “… to explore, imagine, construct,
discuss, plan, problem-solve, dramatize, create, and
experiment” (Wasserman.1990, 33). According to Rieber,
Smith and Noah, (1998), serious play involves Csikszenthmihalyi’s
concept of “flow” in an educational setting, and results
in learning.
For
the purpose of my study, my definition of serious play
involves students being intrinsically motivated to
use educational manipulatives, at an intermediate grade
level, where there is a focus and uninterrupted time,
thereby allowing students the opportunity to learn.
Learning could be in one or more of the following realms:
academic (curriculum), social, physical and/or emotional.
The value of play is not as easily measurable as students’ achievement
in mathematics or other curriculum subjects. Yet there
is no denying that play is instrumental in creating
a “well-rounded” individual. It enables a child to
explore and experiment while building up relations
with the world (Dewey, 1916).
The
value of play in the educational setting cannot be
underrated. The developmental stages of play and their
interdependence on learning prove how integral play
and play at school are. (Weininger, 1979). My question
is: Where is play in the curriculum? And what happens
if I introduce time for serious play into my Grade
Four classroom?
The
Players
My research on the value of serious
play explores Grade Four student interactions with educational
mathematical manipulatives. The class consisted of 28
students (16 female, 12 male), 20 of whom were English
as a Second Language learners and multi-ethnic (Chinese,
Vietnamese, Punjabi, Polish and Canadian). The classroom
is part of an open area where there are three other classes:
one Grade Three class, one Grade Three/Four class, and
one special-needs class (ages 6-12). The school is located
in South-East Vancouver, and is not considered inner
city.
Rules
of the Game
The
twenty-eight Grade Four students participating in my
study were allowed to choose from any of the fifty
games or manipulatives that I made available. Data
was collected by using exit slips, interviews, and
observations. Exit slips required each participant
to complete four short answer questions related to
the activity they had just completed. I interviewed
three participants after each session, using a questionnaire
sheet consisting of four questions, and I did anecdotal
observations during all nine sessions. The sessions
were one hour each, three days per week, for three
weeks. All the manipulatives (mathematical educational
materials) were stored on a wheeled shelf cart.
Initially,
I began my research by photocopying all pertinent data
sheets including a grid sheet which I thought would
help in my observations. The grid was on an 11x17 sheet
with all the students’ names at the top corner of each
square. Each square was 5cm x 5cm and each sheet had
a series of symbols running vertically along the left
side. There was a legend corresponding to the symbols:
#=movement,
*=manipulatives participants were playing with,
@=gender mix during play,
^=dialogue/ comments/remarks
I
had nine of these photocopied grids for each of the
nine sessions. I quickly realized that my observation
sheet was too cumbersome. All the participants’ names
were listed alphabetically, but it took too long for
me to navigate through the grid. I abandoned the grid
and opted for anecdotal real-time observations and
field notetaking. I felt there was more “flow” to capturing
the data with this approach compared to the grid.
All sessions of serious play were
one hour long, including the set-up and clean up, answering
of exit slips, and conducting the interviews. The only
rule stated at the beginning of the research project
was, “You can’t tell someone they can’t play.” After
all nine sessions, I analyzed the data.
Serious
Play at Work…a curricular interruption
After our first session of play time
with the manipulatives, I felt I needed to establish
a curriculum connection to the activities.
“If I am devoting this much time (nine
hours)” I said to myself, “I had better appease the curriculum.”
My goal was to encourage my students
to make connections between the curriculum and the activities
that they were doing during play time. So, before the
second session began, I shared an IRP (Integrated Resource
Package) overview of all the learning outcomes (LO) in
math for Grade Four with my students. (The IRP is a Ministry
of Education document in British Columbia that sets out
all curriculum criteria per subject and grade level).
I went over some of the unfamiliar language with the
class.
I wanted my students to make a connection
with the math manipulatives and the IRP learning outcomes.
For example, one Learning Outcome (LO) is to compare
and construct pyramids and prisms. I told my students
that if they chose this particular learning outcome as
a goal, they would then work with the manipulatives with
this concept or information in mind.
In other words, I anticipated that
my students would find the concept in their math textbook,
read and interpret the information, discuss it with their
peers, and experiment with the manipulatives. After each
session I would check the number of boxes from the LO
sheet I had given them to indicate which learning outcome(s)
they perceived they had connected their activity to.
In this new scenario, I would document how often I intervened
with the participants. For example, I might ask a student, “Can
you tell me where in the textbook it mentions prisms
and come back and show me?”
My
reflections after session two revealed that this approach
was not the way I had originally envisioned serious
play—it was becoming too structured! However, I continued
this structured approach for the next session. And
then, before session four began, I did a 180 degrees
turn. I realized that I had made this serious play
too structured in order to accommodate the curriculum.
Upon this realization, I returned to my original design
of free time by allowing students to use the manipulatives
with no concern for the IRP learning outcomes. On the
fifth session, we continued free time with no direct
referencing to curriculum connections.
My
observations of this session showed that a number of
groups built shapes that resembled people and structures,
such as homes, buildings, towers. Other groups (boys)
constructed spaceships and robots. I recorded in my
reflection diary a thought about the possibility of
a term’s work, possibly a year’s work, devoted to designing
a city and everything to do with it, from infrastructure
to politics, economics, sciences, socials which would
encompass all curriculum as outlined by the IRPs and
engage all participants.
It
was also at this half-way point that I looked at the
terms “serious play” and “structured play” and their
oxymoronic meanings. My dilemma was that I was caught
between chaos in the classroom (allowing complete free
time) and structured time ( no freedom of play). I
realized the free time had to be structured and within
that structure, I had to allow free time (i.e. freedom).
The students (and I) had to learn the rules, expectations,
boundaries, and social etiquette of how the free time
would be played.
A
Curveball. . .the researcher engages in manipulative
play
On
the sixth and seventh sessions, I began removing some
of the manipulatives until only games that involved
reading instructions or directions were left. Up until
this point I had documented what manipulatives and
games were being used, and by whom. Without exception,
all boys except one preferred cubes, lego, gogooplex,
links, stix—basically anything that could be used to
construct a structure. All the girls, except three,
predominately used card games, board games, or other
games that involved social interaction and cooperation.
At
this point I formulated a new set of rules for the
games. I wanted to see the reaction of the boys if
all the building materials were removed. As I predicted,
the boys were not pleased and they “revolted” in subtle
ways. Some participants “shut down” and protested by
not contributing at all. Others showed their disapproval
by attitude or glares. Some boys, however, did make
a switch to the board games but when they had to read
the instructions or directions, they put the games
away and began to doodle. Their exit slips provided
further evidence of their displeasure. The girls, on
the other hand, took this unexpected deprivation of
materials in stride, possibly because their materials
were not affected and hence, they were not affected.
Within
this same session, I decided to further press another
hypothesis. What would happen if I took all the games
away except one? Who would be affected more, the boys
or the girls? As this process of manipulating the materials
accelerated, the boys continued their rapid descent
into displeasure, while the girls easily accommodated
to the change and initiated social interactive play.
For example, slap-hand chant games (probably learned
from the playground) were played by the girls. When
the boys noticed this, some of them began to play “rock,
paper, scissors” and other social games.
As
I manipulated the accessibility of the manipulatives
and games to the point of having no materials available,
it became apparent to me, based on my sense of the
atmosphere in the classroom, that a chaotic, anarchic,
rebellious, angry mood was in the process of materializing.
I heard statements such as “this sucks,” and “this
is stupid” from the boys. Also the body language of
the boys showed their discontent through crossed-arms
and cross brows. I also saw a competitive environment
beginning to emerge:
“We
got here first!”
“Can
we play?”
“No!”
“There’s
too many people!”
My
manipulations resulted in a measured calculation:
No games =no fun=no learning=discontent=conflict=tension.
I intervened and quickly replaced
the games to prevent a “riot.” When all the games were
restocked I immediately observed smiles, laughing, giggling
and I noticed how much quieter the room had become. Therefore,
I came to this simple observation:
A lot of games=fun=learning=contentment=harmony.
The
unsettledness of the classroom, (when there were no
games), and the calmness of the classroom (when there
were games), was largely influenced by the behaviour
of the male participants.
I
categorized the collected data from the exit slips,
interview sheets and observations into the following:
1. The
boys predominately played with manipulatives that involved
constructing: cubes, stix, gogooplex, connect, etc. When
the materials were removed in session six, the boys became
angry and unsettled. They were not as readily able as
the girls to adapt to what they perceived as an “unfair” change
in the situation.
2. The girls predominately played social interactive
card and board games. The girls were not as dependent
upon the materials in order to “play,” adjusting to
the new situation with a minimum of expressed displeasure
or complaint.
Outside
of the Ballpark
I
began this research to explore the value of serious
play. By the very definition of the word “explore,” I
realized I wasn’t sure where my research would lead
me. Curiosity caused me to tamper with the availability
of the manipulatives and games which in turn brought
me to the following unexpected discoveries.
The
students rated each session on a scale from 1-5. If
they really enjoyed a play session they rated it high
(5). If they didn’t enjoy a session they rated it low
(1). Although the average score for the males and females
were almost identical (female 4.01; male 3.99), there
were significantly greater degrees of change in the
scores between individual sessions.
The
following chart shows how much change (%) the genders
had in their rating of each session; that is, how much
they liked or disliked the session. The chart
indicates that the males had significantly greater
changes in their scores from one session to the next
than the girls did.
%
change From Session:
|
Session
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
Males
|
+45%
|
+43%
|
-53%
|
+48%
|
-27%
|
54%
|
|
Females
|
-49%
|
+29%
|
+26%
|
-34%
|
-26%
|
+10%
|
Starting on the sixth session, when
I began removing the manipulatives that the boys had
been using, the boys’ response, based on the rating scale
I had devised (how they perceived the session), was the
most extreme drop (53%) of any session. As was evident
from their score, they showed a significant disapproval
of the session. On the seventh session, I left the remaining
boys’ materials intact and removed some of the girls’ materials.
As is evident in the table above, the girls showed displeasure
in their score with a decrease of 34% for session seven.
Why
were the girls able to accommodate to the change while
the boys became stuck in what I perceived to be a “fight
or flight” mode (Taylor, 2000)? My interpretation of
this is that the boys were unable to “switch off” their
discontent (a stressor). When the construction materials
were eliminated (cubes, blocks, lego, gogoplex) the
boys were not able to move along; they did not adapt
to the new situation easily, but instead complained
or sulked in response. The girls on the other hand,
seemed to be able to accommodate easily to the change
when their materials were removed. They were able to
adjust and simply began social games that didn’t require
manipulatives.
A
new term, “tend-and-befriend,” characterizes female
responses to stress differently from the reactions
of male that are characterized as “fight-or-flight.” (Taylor
et. al., 2000). “The “tend-and-befriend” behaviour
involves females’ nurturance, under stressful circumstances,
and the exhibition of behaviors that protect them from
harm (i.e. tending), and befriending—namely, creating
and joining social groups for the exchange of resources
and protection. The “tend-and-befriend” pattern of
behaviour likely is maintained not only by sex-linked,
neuroendocrine responses to stress but also by social
and cultural roles as well (Taylor et. al., 2000, 411-29).
This “tend
and befriend” response was evident in the females in
my research when they were exposed to a stressor-tense
situation (removal of key materials). I observed this “tend
and befriend” response from the girls and the “fight
or flight” response from the boys during my observations
of the “tense situation” during Session Six for the
boys and Session Seven for the girls,.
If
there were quality educational manipulatives made available
for “play” at the lower intermediate grade level, would
there be an increase in the emotional, physical, social,
and generally, overall, well-being of individual students?
What learning occurred? The following comments are
some of the responses of my students when asked what
they learned after playing with manipulatives during “play
time.”
“I
learned …
—how to make instructions
—how to make stuff
—new words
—inventing
—how to use my imagination
—shapes, volume
—constructing
—how to be fair
—sharing, helping, creating, fun.”
Is
there value in these students' responses? Absolutely,
there is value. Many of these responses are viable
learning outcomes from a prescribed curriculum-perspective.
As educators we are mandated by curriculum, however,
we are not bound to it. Nor should we allow ourselves
nor our students to be overwhelmed by perceived curricular
demands.
It is actually preferable to cover
somewhat less material, investing the time thereby freed
to foster the transfer of that material, than to cover
somewhat more and leave it context-bound. After all,
who needs context-bound knowledge that shows itself only
within the confines of a particular class period, a final
essay, a term’s final exam? In the long haul, there is
no point to such instruction (Perkins, 1986, 5).
Provincial
testing begins at Grade Four, but we cannot become
so “curriculum-driven” that we ignore the other aspects
that make up a “well-rounded” child: These students’ responses
show the emotional and social value of “play time.”
After
the Game
Does
serious play offer curricular opportunities? Glancing
back through my reflection journal, I pause at my entry
on the last day. The final session was very interactive
and very quiet. All the participants were engaged in
manipulatives and were working together. They were
all constructing structures or had a theme of “living
arrangement” whether it was a house, castle, space-station.
If more time had been available, (i.e. a larger block
of uninterrupted time), I think the participants’ use
of the materials could have been subtly directed into
constructing a “city,” or Space lab. By allowing my
students to play, and by giving them control over their
environment, I saw a glimpse of what they may have
desired to construct—a “community.”
I
wonder, if the participants had been given full reign
to engage in “free play” and encouraged to extend philosophical
concepts (with direction and facilitation), would a
utopian-like community evolve? Would their community
have fair laws, be environmentally sound, practice
conservation, and respect democracy? All aspects of
living could be connected to all curriculum areas—this
type of curricular play serious play—would be child-directed,
with child-directed criteria.
The
Scoresheet
Play is not restricted, it is not
circumscribed, but it is rather through play that the
child works upon his understanding of the world around
him. Play encourages the development of the cognitive
map.
Weininger, 1978, 127.
According
to Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory, children
learn in many styles: spatially, musically, kinesthetically,
interpersonally, intrapersonally, linguistically, mathematically,
and naturalistically. Play, at the lower intermediate
level can be a tool where many styles of learning could
be accomplished. Play has been proven to be essential
for many primary children (Grades K-Three).
Yet,
when a child enters Grade Four in September, (after
being out of “primary level” for a short two month
summer vacation), nothing in the curriculum addresses
play. I’m proposing that the jump from primary to intermediate
(Grade Four) should take play into consideration.
Play
does have value as a pedagogical experience, as evident
from the students’ responses to their learning from
the play sessions. Play also allows the facilitator/teacher
to help individual children deal with the uncertainties
in life: how to not “fight or flight” but rather to
identify and resolve the feelings or issues or concerns
arising from play. My findings also showed that providing
a variety of quality, educational manipulatives results
in a positive climate and supportive environment where
learning occurs.
Relationships
for children evolve around play. Grade Four children
need a safe and secure arena to play, discover and
learn, in any realm-be it physically, emotionally,
or academically. Does play at the school level have
value? Does it have intrinsic worth?
Well,
I, for one, would say play does have value—almost to
the point that you cannot put a price or cost to it—it
is priceless.
Our goal as educators is to motivate
children to learn. A child explores, experiments, and
makes sense of the world and his or her place in it through
play (Scarfe, 1963). If play is one “domain” to accomplish
this learning, why not use it as an important cognitive
role in learning?
Reflections of a teacher-researcher
a year later
This past year has not allowed
me to be in the classroom, due to a herniated disc.
However, I have had the opportunity to reflect on
my research. Curriculum is dynamic and influenced by
political climates. However, children's need to play
and interact with others always has been and, always
will be a critical part of their learning and socialization.
Order and structure is not only required, but necessary,
to facilitate learning in the classroom. Yet this needs
to be balanced with a “play time” for both primary
and intermediate-level children—not just recess and
lunch on the playground, but with a commitment to some
allotted time in the classroom—where the kids feel
safe to explore feelings, thoughts, ideas.
The climate inside the school is
usually different from the climate which exists outside
on the playground. The opportunity for children to “play” while
at school is, for the most part unmonitored, and usually
only noticed when someone gets hurt or attention is
brought to the activity. Bullying—physical, social,
and other ways—is most times, undetected. A structured,
monitored environment, where rules are inherent,
would allow children to feel safe and play collaboratively.
This classroom "play time” may help lower intermediate
children work through difficult situations, and instead
of reacting negatively (to numerous situations), they
would have an established environment where they could
be “walked-through” alternate actions.
References:
Bennett,
N. W., Wood, L. & Rogers, S. (1997). Teaching
through play: Teachers' thinking and classroom practice.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Block,
J. H. & King, N. R. (Eds.). (1987). School play:
a Source Book. New York: Garland.
British
Columbia Ministry of Education. (2000). The primary
program: A framework for teaching. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of
Education.
Devires,
R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, C., Edmiaston, R., & Sales,
C. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood
curriculum: Practical principles and activities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and
education. New York: Macmillan.
UNESCO
Courier;
May 91, Vol. 44 Issue 5, 29. ISSN: 0041-5278
Freeman,
J. G., McPhail, J. C., & Berndt, J. A., (2002).
Sixth graders' views of activities that do and do not
help them learn. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 335-348.
Mann,
D. (1996). Serious play. Teachers College Record,
97(3), 446-470.
Marzollo,
J., & Lloyd, J. (1972). Learning through play. New York: Harper & Row.
Rieber,
L.P., & Matzko, M. J. (2001). Serious design of
serious play in physics. Educational Technology, 41(1), 14-24.
Perkins. D.N. (1986). Knowledge as Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Rieber,
L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value
of serious play. Educational Technology, 38(6), 29-37.
Scarfe
. N. V. (1963). Play is education. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Shipley,
D. (2002). Empowering children: Play-based curriculum
for lifelong learning (3rd ed.). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson.
Shipley, D. (1998). Empowering
children: play-based curriculum for lifelong learning (2nd ed.).
Toronto: ITP Nelson.
Smilansky,
S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play:
A medium for promoting cognitive, socio-emotional,
and academic development in young children. Gaithersburg: Psychosocial & Educational
Publications.
Sponseller,
D. (Ed.). (1974). Play as a learning medium. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young
People.
Strom,
R. (1981). Growing through play. California: Cole Publishing.
Taylor S. E., Klein L. C., Lewis B.
P., Gruenewald T. L., Gurung R. A., Updegraff J. A. (2000).
Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend,
not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-29.
Van
Horne, J. (1999). Play at the center of the curriculum. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wassermann,
S. (1992). Serious play in the classroom. Childhood
Education, 68(3), 133-140.
Wassermann,
S. (1990). Serious players in the primary classroom:
Empowering children through active learning experiences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weininger, O. (1979). Play and
education: The basic tool for early childhood learning. Springfield:
Thomas.
Weininger,
O. (1978). Play and the education of the young child. Education,
99(2), 127-129.
Wolk,
S. (2001). The benefits of exploratory time. Educational
Leadership, 59(2), 56-60.
