Through some interruptions, I was able to take in most of the recent ELI webinar (Gail Matthews-DeNatale and Barbara Draude presenting) on play, and in classic conference style, the best parts that I took away were from the back/side channel with the main event providing the fuel/fodder. The presentation very rightly started by pointing out that play is one of those things that can take a lifetime to get into and that the time allotted for the presentation was only an hour.
Starting off with the idea that play was about exploring possibility and developing mental flexibility and toys are merely media that allow individuals to express themselves in different types of play (directional or not – risky or not… ). The presentation then moved into some of the theories – Raph Koster, Scot Osterweil, Brian Sutton-Smith, and the US National Institute of Play – surrounding play and pulling out some ideas for later on.
The first of those ideas was that of bricolage (nee tinkering – as in John Seely Brown) as being a prime skill for contemporary learners to take forward into the workforce and being able to fail and make up realities and explore different aspects/efforts to achieve a solution to a problem. It was just after that when the first question break happened and I don’t think I went back to the main presentation (between interruptions and great back/side channel chat) to get any other idea. I had posted a question when the presenters were presenting the theories about the absence of Sir Ken Robinson. After all, in my mind, play and creativity should be one in the same – or at least very close. According to the presenters, this is one of those “black box” questions/observations as it depends on who you ask and what literature you read as to what the answer will be. It might be that they are one in the same, it might be that they are nascent or that one is a subset of the other.
It was at this point that the side/back channel started up and people started to mention that play helps pull “kids” out of the classroom – be it through simulations (ala these games or Medical Apartheid) or creating other environments that allow the “player” to blend content and process. But after some ten minutes of back and forth, a single frustrating revelation seemed to have emerged – that play, as a regular part of learning has not been provided as an opportunity for students, has not been offered because it is hard to assess and is difficult to standardize. It also can potentially make the teacher/instructor look bad because it is a risk for the instructor as well. This, unfortunately is the nail in the coffin, as this risk is not one that the instructors are willing to take as a poor review form the students as a result of taking that risk is not looked upon favorably the admins who are responsible for tenure/retention/promotion.
So it seems that even though we know that play is a good thing, or if we don’t we can at least be pointed at some scholarly articles to make it more palatable, education as an institution is still too stuffy to play with the idea of play.
Leave a Reply