http://judithwesterfield.files.wordpress.com
/2011/01/dscn0392.jpg
Proposed reasons why play is rarely used in formal educational settings (not exhaustive):
-trained incapacities (Burke, 1954, p. 7) — play is not even considered when evaluating viable modes of learning because it’s beyond educators’ heuristics of recency, frequency, and normativity;
-rustiness — play as a mode of doing and learning is in disuse (while it is used robustly by young children and early childhood educators, that engagement is negatively related to time (i.e., play decreases as children’s age increases));
-fear — of interacting with the foreign that is play in formal educational settings, of suffering negative consequences from this engagement with play (e.g., punishment for such unconventional practice, discomfort from confusion/lack of expertise therein, loss of face from failure/clunky performance)
-perceived lack of credibility — image of play as less competitive/worthwhile than dour drilling
Proposed benefits of practicing silliness for intrapersonal and interpersonal quality of life:
-stress relief
-endorphin release
-thought loop or “work mode” escape
-social bonding
-creative thinking
-pattern recognition
Proposed characterizations of various terms:
-Agenda-less play = tinkering
-Purposeful play = gaming
-Purposeful play beyond pure entertainment = impact gaming
-Unbounded playfulness = substantive silliness
Proposed characterizations of various practices:
Idle play with ideas = daydreaming
Purposeful play with ideas SHOULD = gaming; but usually…
Purposeful play with ideas = working
How do we make purposeful play with ideas more like gaming?
- Liberating Structures?
- Agile Games methodologies?