While listening to the hour webinar I came to the conclusion quite quickly that I had previously not really considered what Play based Learning really meant. I can not even think now what my definition may have been prior to this new perspective.
I can now see more what uninterrupted play looks like - I had been seeing it physically in my centre but not through the eyes of the learning that was happening in the play. I was just seeing disputes as disputes, and things that I could help children with, without considering that the helping with disputes is like the helping with putting on shoes (for a child who can do it themselves), it not only stops them learning to do it for them selves, it could potentially stop the child from developing the resilience needed to cope with the demands that will come later in life.
I can now see more clearly some of the learning in the play I observe each day. Key for me was the 5 parts that make up true play based learning Vs just doing activities.
- Self direction/boredom/choice
- Motivated by the child's own wants and needs
- Guided by mental rules (learning through mistakes and social interactions)
- Imaginative - imagining things that aren't there, people, objects, designs, creations.
- Is observed in an alert/active state - engagement????
And I think I agree with everything he said. It sits well with me, It feels logical (and I love logic), But it opposes a whole lot of thoughts I just had a day ago. So in disruption I now sit, contemplating whether the thoughts I had yesterday (around teachers bringing their own passions into the play) are wrong, or whether they do have a place in the concept of play.
And also - when play isn't meeting the criteria above - is it still play? How can we support children to increase the value of their play - or is that the wrong question. Does the teacher simply need to back off and these conditions will rise to the surface.
So much disruption of thinking :)
How will this change how I see the philosophy in our centre.
Thanks Peter Grey
