Freedom to Learn

The roles of play and curiosity as foundations for learning

Peter Gray, a research professor of psychology at Boston College, is a specialist in developmental and evolutionary psychology and author of an introductory textbook, Psychology. See full bio

October 1, 2008, Child Development

Comments on "The Varieties of Play Match the Requirements of Human Existence"

The Varieties of Play Match the Requirements of Human Existence

By Peter Gray on October 1, 2008 in Freedom to Learn

From an evolutionary perspective, play is nature's way of ensuring that young mammals will practice the skills they need for survival. Young carnivores, such as lions and tigers, play at stalking, chasing, and pouncing. Young zebras and other animals that are preyed on by lions and such play at running, dodging, and escaping. Young monkeys play endlessly at chasing one another and swinging from trees. Young humans--who have far more to learn than do the young of any other species--play in far more ways than do the young of any other species. The varieties of human play match well with the skills that humans everywhere must develop to survive and thrive. Read More

i think parents who prevent

Submitted by farouk on October 2, 2008 - 4:21am.

i think parents who prevent their children from playing certain games are limiting their children's skills without noticing

learning disabilities

Submitted by Lou on October 2, 2008 - 11:24am.

i wondered if you had any thoughts about learning disabilities and how it might relate to any of what you've talked about. i find SVS's statement that they've never had a case of dyslexia interesting.

re: learning disabilities

Submitted by Peter Gray on October 3, 2008 - 6:29am.

Lou, one thing I can say on this topic is that at least some of what are called "learning disabilities" in standard schools are really school-specific problems. They are not real problems with learning under natural conditions. I think this is true for most cases of ADHD and ADD. Kids who find it difficult to sit still in classes and attend to lessons that others have assigned to them don't have particular difficulties attending to tasks that they have taken on themselves. I also think it's true for at least some cases, maybe most cases, of so-called "dyslexia." Certainly there are differences among kids in the ease with which they learn to read and there may be biological differences underlying those. In standard schools, however, those differences are exacerbated by anxiety. The kid who is a little slow at learning to read becomes frightened and embarrassed at his or her poor reading. Reading becomes stressful. The stressed state is not a good state for learning. In the study of graduates of Sudbury Valley that David Chanoff and I did many years ago we identified two graduates who both claimed to have come to SVS with diagnoses of dyslexia. Both had come to the school at age 15, both claimed that they couldn't read when they first came to the school, and both claimed that they learned to read within a relatively short time of being at the school. The reason they both gave is that for the first time in their life they could approach reading without feeling embarrassed about it. Nobody at SVS seemed concerned about their inability to read, so they could relax about it, ask for some help, and practice in the playful state of mind that is so valuable for learning.

Lack of playtime in children's lives

Submitted by Linda McKenna on October 3, 2008 - 6:20am.

I have a few questions regarding play:

1. Do you think children are given enough time to "play" in the current mainstream education system?

2. And is there a difference between boys and girls as to how much playtime they require for healthy development?

3. I've always been concerned about our gifted children who are bombarded with so much academic work throughout high school. My daughter is currently taking 7 AP courses and averaging maybe 6 hours of sleep per night. I was thinking only last week how her social maturity does not seem to be on par with her age level. This seems to be true with many of her fellow gifted students. Hmmm... It could be just my perspective.

4. I've been reading a blog written by a young man about post college depression. Depression among young professionals who are entering the "real" world straight out of college seems to be too big of a problem to ignore. I am inclined to believe all of these issues are somehow connected. Perhaps I'm getting too broad and off topic?

5. And lastly, if there are concerns such as these (along with other points you've made in your previous posts), why is our education system continuing down the same path with no real change in sight?

Lack of playtime

Submitted by Peter Gray on October 3, 2008 - 7:03am.

Linda, here briefly are my thoughts on each of your questions: 1. No. Children are given almost no time to play in the current mainstream educational system. Moreover, their opportunities for full play, in a natural play environment, are cut off, even when they have time, because of the age-graded nature of school. Parents' fears about dangers in the neighborhood or on the streets further reduce their opportunities for play. 2. This is an interesting question and my answer is somewhat tentative. I think that for full, healthy development boys and girls need equal, large amounts of time for real play. However, I think that our current experience with the school system shows that girls, on average, may adapt somewhat better to play deprivation than do boys. The extraordinarily high rate of diagnosis of ADHD among boys in school and the high drop-out rate for boys compared to girls suggest to me that boys are faring more poorly than girls in our current system. Boys may need more rough-and-tumble outdoor type play than do girls, just to maintain their mental health; and that is the kind of play that is especially lacking. 3. Wouldn't it be nice if "gifted children" could just finish up their work quickly and then devote the rest of their time to activities that they choose themselves? We prevent children from exploring and learning to take initiative and discovering their real interests, when we occupy all their time with homework. I might note also that many so-called "gifted children" are really those who are particularly concerned to do well in school, so they work especially hard at it and thereby neglect some of the other aspects of life that are important for full development. 4. The rate of depression in children and young adults is higher now than it has ever been in the past. One of the great causes of depression is the sense of lack of control, lack of ability to do anything about one's environment. I think it is no accident that as forced schooling increases and becomes ever more rigid, depression rises. 5. Regarding this last question, I refer you to my August 27 post, Why Schools Are What They Are II: Forces Against Fundamental Change.

Private vs. Public...

Submitted by Heidi on October 7, 2008 - 5:41am.

I agree with you completely that children, both in school and out, are not generally given enough time to play freely.

I've worked in both private and public schools and in some cases, the private schools did a better job of giving more unstructured time. Perhaps because they are less beholden to standardized testing?

On the other hand, I worked in one private school that prided itself of giving a heavy homework load, thus preventing children from playing even after school.

Do you have any thoughts about how to reverse this trend? I'd love to send my child to an SVS model school, but I'll have to open one myself for that to happen. What can I do to encourage traditional schools to provide more playtime? I'm interested in ALL children having more time to play, not just my own.

Thank you,
Heidi

Time to play

Submitted by Peter Gray on October 7, 2008 - 11:06am.

Heidi, your question has prodded me to devote tomorrow's posting to this topic: What can we do to increase the opportunities for play, for children who are in conventional schools?