'Our academic institutions, sadly, are also schools, and schools are designed in a way that tends to destroy the playground. Few students at any level in what we erroneously call their “academic” training, see themselves as playing. We call it work, and so do they. What we make them do is as close to the opposite of play as one can get. Children are designed to play and learn in play, but we drill that out of them in school.'
Yes, yes and YES. Sadly, yes. It's heartbreaking what we're doing to generations of children and young people.
This comes back to your previous writings about 'work' and 'play' - words I've struggled with for most of my life.
And I'm sure you're aware of Sir Ken Robinson's VERY funny comments about college professors?? In his first 'Do schools kill creativity?' TED talk.
In Other News - I'm about to host a course which might be of interest to both you, Peter, and your readers - 'Children's Play and Folklore, Past and Present' - I have three of the greatest experts presenting so I'm hugely excited about this and looking forward to rediscovering the world of childhood that so many of us are encouraged to put away...
Thank you, Peter, I've loved playing with ideas for several years, maybe even since I realized I had an idea. As a young boy in parochial school, I took on the challenge of memorizing, which at first felt like a game, but then did not. So I replaced that game with understanding what I was being told. That eventually became great play. Then I turned the game of understanding on myself, a game I'm still playing. The joy of play makes life so worthwhile. I envision a day when enough adults realize life can be about play for a lifetime and change the rules of education making way for play through out a child's educational experience.
I love this conversation about play, and teach an online course for early childhood educators called, "Becoming Champions of Play".
“Play, as part of its definition, is something done for no practical gain, at least not conscious practical gain.” The gain is in the doing; children learn self-regulation through play, building the capacity to chart their own course and work through challenges. Following the inner genius instead of outward direction, allows for unexpected discoveries instead of predictable outcomes.
Since play is self-directed, it is often challenging within a teacher-directed environment (i.e. most school experiences from preschool through college).
I broadly agree with this article, and want to support the idea that it is difficult to find a position in academia that really allows for a significant degree of "playfulness."
To add some color: I did my PhD and a postdoc at well-known R1 institutions. I was fortunate in my PhD to have an advisor who no longer had anything to prove and was in the game for the love of it, which gave me much freedom to "play" in the sense described here. In my postdoc, I also had a great mentor who loved what he did, but he also taught me how the grant game and hiring/promotion game is played which (with some other experiences) left me frankly disgusted with the culture despite some initial success. I also got some experience teaching and advising students which was a mixed bag -- some students were genuinely interested and curious, but some really couldn't get into a playful mindset no matter how much I tried to help it along (likely due to their previous experiences with schooling).
I ended up taking a research position in industry without even considering further academic options and have never regretted my choice. I always say I get to do more actual research (in the sense of tinkering to figure out how things work) now than I ever got to do in academia (my manager tries to help keep my schedule clear instead of asking me to be on committees). The work-life balance and pay are also significantly better which gives me more freedom to pursue my (rather broad academic) interests without worrying about shoehorning them into a grant application. I also get to spend more time with my kids. There are some potential disadvantages, which haven't bothered me so far: primarily that my employer has a say over what I do at work (although my interests are aligned), and I don't have blanket freedom to publish (which is its own can of worms), but I personally don't view this as fundamentally different from the constraints imposed by tailoring whatever research you want to do to what some grant agency wants. I like my current employer but if things ever go south, I can move to a new company without much trouble compared to what academics have to do to switch institutions.
I will say that there are some really excellent teachers and researchers in academia who make it through the grinder without appearing to compromise their playful spirit. For myself and some others I know, the optimal environment for this academic form of playfulness was not inside academia itself.
Now I understand why I don't enjoy my work and a lot of my daily tasks. I've got to introduce play in everything. Actually, in the Coran life is often referred to as "a matter of play and fun", I didn't notice until now, it's worth exploring!
I loved the definition of an academic, as someone who is completing their dissertation on play- I am often met with giggles and confusion by most.
Currently, observing students during play in the school day has brought on the unique challenge of controlling how students play. I sometimes encounter challenges when it comes to addressing “inappropriate” behavior among students, such as instances where they engage in activities like making guns out of Legos or attempting to climb the school fence. Handling such situations in a school setting can be difficult, I would consider it normal risky play, however, many other teachers feel the students need to be punished for this “inappropriate” behavior. I fear that policing students play only makes them less willing to have true curiosity and freedom in the play. I’m worried as I’m sure this happens so often in school settings, am wondering if anyone can offer suggestions to this as it regularly stirs in my mind… thanks in advance for reading 😊
I’ve had the same experience watching kids on the playground. It’s clear that some of them love rougher play. For some, nothing could be more enjoyable than rough and tumble play, both boys and girls. Full of smiles and laughter; occasional blows, landing on top of each other, throwing rubber tire chips, falling from the mushroom rotating bar, but still having a wonderful time. Occasionally I would warn Peter, the tallest and strongest boy to tone it down or adjust his pushing technique, but he rarely listened. The other kids never complained about his stronger, rougher pushes. They actually wanted to be pushed by Peter. He made it more fun. It all looked risky to me, but no injuries ever occurred. So I just let them play. I routinely let the kids play rough. But administrators and other teachers would crack down sometimes directing me to crack down. Once the headmaster asked “Why are those kids chasing each other?” Cause they’re seven years old. My perspective was, “If they want to play rough, let them play rough.” My guess is that administrators are concerned about lawsuits and calls from complaining parents at the executive level. What can we do about that? I say it’s weak leadership, especially among the executives and attorneys.
Thank you Scott for that insight, I agree It comes down to the leadership and really taking time to understand the the benefits of this kind of play and also, not to be so in fear of a potential law suit or upset parent. I wonder sometimes on where the more broader education on this topic can come into play… thank you for reading and responding… looks like more pondering for me
I loved this! It resonates so much with me - I work in academia and find that our days are filled with dry ‘stuff’ to attend, read, fill out, discuss. It knocks any enthusiasm out of even the most eager of staff!
To truly learn and be creative or innovative within education needs space, with time to play and think.
I’m so glad to hear that you have the same thoughts on this. Universities have so much to change if they want to remain relevant!
"too many who go through this system and become professors never recover the true academic spirit, the spirit of play. They are in it just as a job, to make money, to advance through the system. Ironically, our so-called “academic” institutions appear to be almost deliberately designed to destroy the spirit of academia, the spirit of play. It is surprising that some manage to go through all this and become professors without losing entirely the academic spirit."
This makes me wonder, how much of the problem of fabricated or falsified academic research--I'm thinking about recent high profile accusations against Dan Ariely, Francesca Gino, Marc Tessier-Lavigne--can be in part attributed to the loss of the spirit of play? If they had approached their work in a playful manner, more invested in experimenting and learning than of producing a certain outcome, would they have been able to avoid the temptation of publishing dishonest papers? I'm guessing yes, but a focus on achieving certain outcomes tends to pull people out of the moment.
Peter - I’m in favor of more play in education. The question is how much more play. There’s no way for us to figure this out without more experiments. Agreed? So how can we conduct more experiments?
“Play, as part of its definition, is something done for no practical gain, at least not conscious practical gain.” That last part is very important: “at least not conscious practical gain.” And I would argue that play is with us today only because it had and still has value. The evidence for this is that those that have engaged in play survived. Every kid plays. Those that didn’t play are no longer with us. They died off.
I am from Japan where doing as you are told is the mantra of all school and actually all of life. I attended a very prestigious liberal arts bilingual college in Japan. I remember a guest professor came to give a talk from the US with whom I had a chance to meet afterward. His research was quite well known in the field. He presumed he will give a short introduction and open for questions from the audience. This had worked well in the past, students asking a myriad of interesting questions. Not so in Japan. Everyone sat silently waiting for the professor to speak. It became clear there were no questions forthcoming so the professor decided to talk about something and everyone was happy.
On the other hand, I heard that the Japanese are very keen on Sudbury Valley school and come regularly to visit and study the school. National broad casting company has made documentaries and books written. There are a few schools in Japan. Is this a case of opposites attract? I have very difficult time believing any form of self directed learning is possible in Japan. Maybe for preschool and lower elementary perhaps. And I have difficulty seeing any fully self directed student being successful in any university or workplace. They could maybe be a TV talent or artist? How does that work?
There was a time, some years ago, when many in Japan were concerned about the stifling effect of Japanese education. That led some, including a film crew, to come and document what was happening at Sudbury Valley. Some in Japan were also interested in the age mixing at Sudbury Valley because Japan is (was?) a place where age equates with status in the world of employment, and some thought that was stifling ingenuity in the workplace by suppessing the voices of younger employees.
jamas disfrute la escuela pero si el patio de mi casa donde jugue por muchas horas con todo lo que habia a mi alrededor. Desde el pensamiento general me he demorado en encontrar o ser conciente del sentido de mi vida, nos reencontramos no hace mucho. Soy profesor de Yoga con un enfoque amplio a todas las disciplinas que me llame la atencion . muchisimas gracias Peter!
'Our academic institutions, sadly, are also schools, and schools are designed in a way that tends to destroy the playground. Few students at any level in what we erroneously call their “academic” training, see themselves as playing. We call it work, and so do they. What we make them do is as close to the opposite of play as one can get. Children are designed to play and learn in play, but we drill that out of them in school.'
Yes, yes and YES. Sadly, yes. It's heartbreaking what we're doing to generations of children and young people.
This comes back to your previous writings about 'work' and 'play' - words I've struggled with for most of my life.
And I'm sure you're aware of Sir Ken Robinson's VERY funny comments about college professors?? In his first 'Do schools kill creativity?' TED talk.
In Other News - I'm about to host a course which might be of interest to both you, Peter, and your readers - 'Children's Play and Folklore, Past and Present' - I have three of the greatest experts presenting so I'm hugely excited about this and looking forward to rediscovering the world of childhood that so many of us are encouraged to put away...
Thank you, Peter, I've loved playing with ideas for several years, maybe even since I realized I had an idea. As a young boy in parochial school, I took on the challenge of memorizing, which at first felt like a game, but then did not. So I replaced that game with understanding what I was being told. That eventually became great play. Then I turned the game of understanding on myself, a game I'm still playing. The joy of play makes life so worthwhile. I envision a day when enough adults realize life can be about play for a lifetime and change the rules of education making way for play through out a child's educational experience.
I love this conversation about play, and teach an online course for early childhood educators called, "Becoming Champions of Play".
“Play, as part of its definition, is something done for no practical gain, at least not conscious practical gain.” The gain is in the doing; children learn self-regulation through play, building the capacity to chart their own course and work through challenges. Following the inner genius instead of outward direction, allows for unexpected discoveries instead of predictable outcomes.
Since play is self-directed, it is often challenging within a teacher-directed environment (i.e. most school experiences from preschool through college).
I broadly agree with this article, and want to support the idea that it is difficult to find a position in academia that really allows for a significant degree of "playfulness."
To add some color: I did my PhD and a postdoc at well-known R1 institutions. I was fortunate in my PhD to have an advisor who no longer had anything to prove and was in the game for the love of it, which gave me much freedom to "play" in the sense described here. In my postdoc, I also had a great mentor who loved what he did, but he also taught me how the grant game and hiring/promotion game is played which (with some other experiences) left me frankly disgusted with the culture despite some initial success. I also got some experience teaching and advising students which was a mixed bag -- some students were genuinely interested and curious, but some really couldn't get into a playful mindset no matter how much I tried to help it along (likely due to their previous experiences with schooling).
I ended up taking a research position in industry without even considering further academic options and have never regretted my choice. I always say I get to do more actual research (in the sense of tinkering to figure out how things work) now than I ever got to do in academia (my manager tries to help keep my schedule clear instead of asking me to be on committees). The work-life balance and pay are also significantly better which gives me more freedom to pursue my (rather broad academic) interests without worrying about shoehorning them into a grant application. I also get to spend more time with my kids. There are some potential disadvantages, which haven't bothered me so far: primarily that my employer has a say over what I do at work (although my interests are aligned), and I don't have blanket freedom to publish (which is its own can of worms), but I personally don't view this as fundamentally different from the constraints imposed by tailoring whatever research you want to do to what some grant agency wants. I like my current employer but if things ever go south, I can move to a new company without much trouble compared to what academics have to do to switch institutions.
I will say that there are some really excellent teachers and researchers in academia who make it through the grinder without appearing to compromise their playful spirit. For myself and some others I know, the optimal environment for this academic form of playfulness was not inside academia itself.
Now I understand why I don't enjoy my work and a lot of my daily tasks. I've got to introduce play in everything. Actually, in the Coran life is often referred to as "a matter of play and fun", I didn't notice until now, it's worth exploring!
I loved the definition of an academic, as someone who is completing their dissertation on play- I am often met with giggles and confusion by most.
Currently, observing students during play in the school day has brought on the unique challenge of controlling how students play. I sometimes encounter challenges when it comes to addressing “inappropriate” behavior among students, such as instances where they engage in activities like making guns out of Legos or attempting to climb the school fence. Handling such situations in a school setting can be difficult, I would consider it normal risky play, however, many other teachers feel the students need to be punished for this “inappropriate” behavior. I fear that policing students play only makes them less willing to have true curiosity and freedom in the play. I’m worried as I’m sure this happens so often in school settings, am wondering if anyone can offer suggestions to this as it regularly stirs in my mind… thanks in advance for reading 😊
I’ve had the same experience watching kids on the playground. It’s clear that some of them love rougher play. For some, nothing could be more enjoyable than rough and tumble play, both boys and girls. Full of smiles and laughter; occasional blows, landing on top of each other, throwing rubber tire chips, falling from the mushroom rotating bar, but still having a wonderful time. Occasionally I would warn Peter, the tallest and strongest boy to tone it down or adjust his pushing technique, but he rarely listened. The other kids never complained about his stronger, rougher pushes. They actually wanted to be pushed by Peter. He made it more fun. It all looked risky to me, but no injuries ever occurred. So I just let them play. I routinely let the kids play rough. But administrators and other teachers would crack down sometimes directing me to crack down. Once the headmaster asked “Why are those kids chasing each other?” Cause they’re seven years old. My perspective was, “If they want to play rough, let them play rough.” My guess is that administrators are concerned about lawsuits and calls from complaining parents at the executive level. What can we do about that? I say it’s weak leadership, especially among the executives and attorneys.
Thank you Scott for that insight, I agree It comes down to the leadership and really taking time to understand the the benefits of this kind of play and also, not to be so in fear of a potential law suit or upset parent. I wonder sometimes on where the more broader education on this topic can come into play… thank you for reading and responding… looks like more pondering for me
Totally love your posts!
I loved this! It resonates so much with me - I work in academia and find that our days are filled with dry ‘stuff’ to attend, read, fill out, discuss. It knocks any enthusiasm out of even the most eager of staff!
To truly learn and be creative or innovative within education needs space, with time to play and think.
I’m so glad to hear that you have the same thoughts on this. Universities have so much to change if they want to remain relevant!
Useful thoughts.
Is exploring more apt than playing?
Yes, admittedly, it probably is. Maybe we should call it playful exploring.
"too many who go through this system and become professors never recover the true academic spirit, the spirit of play. They are in it just as a job, to make money, to advance through the system. Ironically, our so-called “academic” institutions appear to be almost deliberately designed to destroy the spirit of academia, the spirit of play. It is surprising that some manage to go through all this and become professors without losing entirely the academic spirit."
This makes me wonder, how much of the problem of fabricated or falsified academic research--I'm thinking about recent high profile accusations against Dan Ariely, Francesca Gino, Marc Tessier-Lavigne--can be in part attributed to the loss of the spirit of play? If they had approached their work in a playful manner, more invested in experimenting and learning than of producing a certain outcome, would they have been able to avoid the temptation of publishing dishonest papers? I'm guessing yes, but a focus on achieving certain outcomes tends to pull people out of the moment.
Antonio, I think you will find interesting the PT article I posted 14 years ago on cheating in science: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201010/cheating-in-science-school-is-breeding-ground
And this one, which preceded it: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201010/cheating-in-science-tragic-story-suicide
Thanks for the links, Peter. I remembered the second article as I was writing my response! It was such a memorable story, albeit a sad one.
I have so much to say in support that I don.t even think I know where to begin.
Peter - I’m in favor of more play in education. The question is how much more play. There’s no way for us to figure this out without more experiments. Agreed? So how can we conduct more experiments?
“Play, as part of its definition, is something done for no practical gain, at least not conscious practical gain.” That last part is very important: “at least not conscious practical gain.” And I would argue that play is with us today only because it had and still has value. The evidence for this is that those that have engaged in play survived. Every kid plays. Those that didn’t play are no longer with us. They died off.
Yes, that has been my argument in all I write about children's play. See Letter #5.
Letter #5 here for anyone interested
https://open.substack.com/pub/petergray/p/5-play-is-how-children-practice-all?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks!
I am from Japan where doing as you are told is the mantra of all school and actually all of life. I attended a very prestigious liberal arts bilingual college in Japan. I remember a guest professor came to give a talk from the US with whom I had a chance to meet afterward. His research was quite well known in the field. He presumed he will give a short introduction and open for questions from the audience. This had worked well in the past, students asking a myriad of interesting questions. Not so in Japan. Everyone sat silently waiting for the professor to speak. It became clear there were no questions forthcoming so the professor decided to talk about something and everyone was happy.
On the other hand, I heard that the Japanese are very keen on Sudbury Valley school and come regularly to visit and study the school. National broad casting company has made documentaries and books written. There are a few schools in Japan. Is this a case of opposites attract? I have very difficult time believing any form of self directed learning is possible in Japan. Maybe for preschool and lower elementary perhaps. And I have difficulty seeing any fully self directed student being successful in any university or workplace. They could maybe be a TV talent or artist? How does that work?
There was a time, some years ago, when many in Japan were concerned about the stifling effect of Japanese education. That led some, including a film crew, to come and document what was happening at Sudbury Valley. Some in Japan were also interested in the age mixing at Sudbury Valley because Japan is (was?) a place where age equates with status in the world of employment, and some thought that was stifling ingenuity in the workplace by suppessing the voices of younger employees.
I have long been suspicious of the emphasis upon metrics in education via the quantitative aggregation of exam scores
jamas disfrute la escuela pero si el patio de mi casa donde jugue por muchas horas con todo lo que habia a mi alrededor. Desde el pensamiento general me he demorado en encontrar o ser conciente del sentido de mi vida, nos reencontramos no hace mucho. Soy profesor de Yoga con un enfoque amplio a todas las disciplinas que me llame la atencion . muchisimas gracias Peter!