Fwd: [ndsgroup] The Value of Age-Mixed Play (and play in general)

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

  In Ed Week April 16.

  Commentary

  The Value of Age-Mixed Play
  —Steve Dininno

  Capitalizing on Children's 'Natural Ways of Learning'

  By Peter Gray

  I was sitting in the playroom at the Sudbury Valley School, in Framingham,
  Mass., pretending to read a book but surreptitiously observing a remarkable
  scene. A 13-year-old boy and two 7-year-old boys were creating, purely for
  their own amusement, a fantastic story involving heroic characters, monsters,
  and battles. The 7-year-olds gleefully shouted out ideas about what would
  happen next, while the 13-year-old, an excellent artist, translated the ideas
  into a coherent story and sketched the scenes on the blackboard almost as
  fast as the younger children could describe them. The game continued for at
  least half an hour, which was the length of time I permitted myself to watch
  before moving on. I felt privileged to enjoy an artistic creation that, I
  know, could not have been produced by 7-year-olds alone and almost certainly
  would not have been produced by 13-year-olds alone. The unbounded enthusiasm
  and creative imagery of the 7-year-olds I watched, combined with the advanced
  narrative and artistic abilities of the 13-year-old they played with,
  provided just the right chemical mix for this creative explosion to occur.

  Throughout most of human history, age-mixed play was the norm.

  I am a research psychologist, interested in play. My work has convinced me
  that age-mixed play is qualitatively different from play among children who
  are all similar in age. It is more nurturing, less competitive, often more
  creative, and it offers unique opportunities for learning. Throughout most of
  human history, age-mixed play was the norm. Only with the advent of
  age-graded schooling and, even more recently, of age-graded, adult-supervised
  activities outside of school, have children and adolescents been deprived of
  opportunities to play with others across the whole spectrum of ages. In the
  course of human evolution, play came to serve its educational functions in
  age-mixed settings; I contend that it still serves those functions best in
  such settings.

  Most of my observations of age-mixed play have been at the Sudbury Valley
  School, which is one of the few settings in our culture today where such play
  predominates. This school, now celebrating its 40th year of operation, has
  approximately 180 students at any given time, who range in age from 4 to
  about 18. The students are not assigned to grades, classrooms, or other
  spaces, and their education is entirely self-directed. They are free to go
  wherever they wish in the school buildings and campus, and to interact with
  whom they please. (For more about the school and its graduates, see
  www.sudval.org.) Daniel Greenberg, one of the school’s founders and the
  leading exponent of its philosophy, has long contended that the key to the
  school’s educational success is free age-mixing.

  The most obvious advantage of age-mixed play for the younger participants is
  that it allows them to engage in, and learn from, activities that they could
  not do alone or just with age-mates. As a simple example, two 4-year-olds
  cannot play a game of catch together. Neither can throw the ball straight
  enough or catch well enough to make the game work. But a 4-year-old and a
  9-year-old can play and enjoy such a game. The 9-year-old can lob the ball
  gently into the hands of the 4-year-old and can leap and dive to catch the
  other’s wild throws.
  In the 1930s, the Russian developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky coined the
  phrase zone of proximal development to refer to those activities that a child
  cannot do alone or with others of the same ability, but can do with others
  who are more skilled. Extending Vygotsky’s idea, the Harvard psychologist
  Jerome Bruner and his colleagues introduced the term scaffolding as a
  metaphor for the means by which the more skilled participant enables the
  novice to engage in a shared activity. In the example just described, playing
  catch is in the zone of proximal development for the 4-year-old, and the
  9-year-old erects scaffolds by throwing gently and by leaping to catch wild
  throws.

  Here’s another example. Children under about age 9 generally cannot play
  formal card games with age-mates. They lose track of rules; their attention
  wanders; the game, if it ever begins, quickly disintegrates. But at Sudbury
  Valley, children younger than this play cards with older children or
  adolescents. The older players remind the younger ones what they have to do.
  “Hold your cards up so others can’t see them.” “Pay attention to the cards
  already played and try to remember them.” The reminders are given just when
  necessary, to keep the game going and to keep it fun for all. In the process,
  the younger children become better at paying attention, keeping track of
  information, and thinking ahead. These are the foundation skills that
  underlie what we commonly call intelligence.

  Similar suggestions and boosts occur in all sorts of age-mixed games—computer
  games, writing games, outdoor games, informal fantasy games, and
  rough-and-tumble play. In the name of fun, the older participants naturally,
  and often unconsciously, erect scaffolds that allow younger ones to stretch
  and build their physical, social, and intellectual skills. Motivation is no
  problem in such learning. All of the children are playing because they want
  to, and they all strive to play well. Many children at Sudbury Valley have
  learned to read and write, without formal instruction, solely through the
  scaffolding provided by their playmates.
  In the educational literature, Vygotsky’s and Bruner’s concepts are used most
  often to describe interactions between young children and their parents or
  teachers. My observations, however, suggest that the concepts apply even
  better to age-mixed interactions among children and/or adolescents, where
  nobody is officially teacher or learner, but all are simply having fun. Older
  children and adolescents are closer in energy level, activity preferences,
  and understanding to the younger children than are adults, so it is more
  natural for them than it is for adults to behave within the younger ones’
  “zones of proximal development.” Moreover, because older children and
  adolescents do not see themselves as responsible for the younger children’s
  long-term education, they typically do not provide more information or boosts
  than the younger ones want or need. They do not become boring or
  condescending.

  We must find ways to break down the barriers we have erected to keep young
  people of different ages apart.

  The benefits of age-mixed play go in both directions. In interactions with
  younger ones, older children exercise their nurturing instincts and take
  pride in being the mature person in a relationship. They also consolidate and
  expand their own knowledge through teaching. When older children explain
  rules, strategies, moral principles, or other concepts to younger ones, they
  have to make their implicit understanding explicit, which may lead them to
  re-examine what they thought they already knew.

  Moreover, just as younger children are attracted to the more sophisticated
  activities of older ones, older children are attracted to the creative and
  imaginative activities of younger ones. At Sudbury Valley, we have frequently
  observed teenagers playing with paints, clay, or blocks, or playing
  make-believe games—activities that most teenagers elsewhere in our culture
  would have long since abandoned. In the process, the teenagers become
  wonderful artists, builders, storytellers, and creative thinkers.

  If we want to capitalize on children’s and adolescents’ natural, playful ways
  of learning, we must find ways to break down the barriers we have erected to
  keep young people of different ages apart. Age segregation deprives them not
  only of fun, but also of the opportunity to use fully their most powerful
  natural tools for learning.

  Peter Gray, a psychologist, is a research professor at Boston College. He is
  the author of the widely used introductory college textbook Psychology, now
  in its fifth edition, and is currently writing a book about the nature and
  functions of play in both children and adults.

Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll

http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F

Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!