Synthesis report
about the scientific support implementing the Scrapstore PlayPod on three sites in France and Spain
With
the support of
Preface
In
2006, Bristol City Council and Children’s Scrapstore, (a children’s charity), wanted
to improve the play offer in primary schools, to meet the objectives set out in
the governments play strategy of the time.
They invited two other local authorities—South Gloucestershire and Bath
& North East Somerset—to form a working group and apply for funding. This
resulted in an action research project called Scrapstore PlayPods: “Investigating the benefits of improving
outdoor play environments in primary schools for the purpose of supporting
children’s development, learning and play experiences.”
From
this research project, Scrapstore PlayPods[1]
was born: A process that works with the entire school community to change both
the human and physical play environments; transforming play at lunchtimes.
The
transition from research to service and product delivery was a gradual and
tentative one, but since its introduction to schools over seven years ago
Scrapstore PlayPods have created a strong culture around play and risk in
school playtimes with clients describing very positive changes in children,
staff and the climate of the school in general.
In
February 2015 we became a key partner on an Erasmus+ Knowledge Transfer
Partnership, piloting Scrapstore PlayPods in France and Spain called “Outdoor
Play & Sustainable Development in Educational Structures”. Over the last 24
months we have supported project partners to make observations and assessments
of the play areas in educational settings, identify suitable Scrapstore PlayPod
sites for the pilot and share skills and knowledge through meetings and training
seminars. It was fantastic to see children enjoying using the first Scrapstore
PlayPods in France and Spain, which opened in spring 2016 with great success.
This
Synthesis offers an in-depth, acute observation of the impact of introducing
loose parts into play environments in different educational settings and the
impact it has on the children’s behaviour during their free time: their
approach to the ‘The PlayPod Game’.
The
observations in the research explore and examine the impact this project has
had on professional practices within the playground and the paradoxes that this
creates within educational agendas. Also demonstrated are the necessary
“physical and human environmental conditions/interventions” needed for a
successful implementation. In particular practitioners reported an increased
consciousness of risk and implementation of risk controls into their practice,
as the children’s play dramatically changed in response to the introduction of
loose parts.
All
research is valid, and essential diversifications inform rather than detract.
It is of particular interest to note, therefore, that in Spain the project was
delivered to an age group not previously supported where there were other
conditions and factors which would not normally be encountered. The findings
indicated that the research within the older age group fared as well as those
in Britain, but with the younger age range the conditions significantly changed
altering the impact and functionality, to which the astute observations of the
Spanish team testify.
The
findings were never-the-less of great use and the cultural differences were as
informative as the play. The success of the Spanish experience compared with
the French and British ones would possibly be identifies by the need to clearly
address approaches and ideas for the older age ranges in children and adults to
see what might be different from the first attempt. Preparation would therefore
be key. Although we anticipated that there would be cultural and social
differences it has been fascinating and reassuring to see how this project has
identified many similarities and successes to the English model.
With
the help of such an august body as the University of Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris
Cité and the expertise which has been available from all parties throughout we
believe this report demonstrates that robust systems and professional support
result in successful collaborations and programmes on behalf of children
everywhere.
We
would like to take this opportunity to thank all the partners for their
contributions and success in delivering this exciting project and in particular
the role and management of La Ligue de l’enseignement’s personnel in bringing
this project to completion. We hope that these positive early steps will set
the foundations for more children to experience high quality play opportunities
in schools across Europe.
Daniel
Rees-Jones & Kirsty Wilson
Scrapstore
PlayPod
I.
Introduction
This research report is a
scientific summary of the implementation of the PlayPod in three
sites, two in France (a primary school in Paris and a Leisure centre in the suburb of Paris)
on in Spain (an infant school for students under the age of 3 years in the town of Manresa,
Barcelona).
sites, two in France (a primary school in Paris and a Leisure centre in the suburb of Paris)
on in Spain (an infant school for students under the age of 3 years in the town of Manresa,
Barcelona).
A PlayPod, as its name already suggests, is literally a pod to play with. In this case, children have access to the container, which is designed to store selected recycled items and objects
Children’s Scraptore is a British organization that collects waste
materials from different kinds of businesses and recycles them to create new
resources and creative materials. Materials and resources are stored in a depot
in Bristol, from which members of the organization may take all they need and
then turn back for future reuse by other members. In this depot all kinds of
materials for creative games can be found: paper, cardboard, foam, flower pots,
plastic tubes, nets, fabric pieces, books, CDs, etc. Scraptore
PlayPods introduce children to freely play with unrelated objects, “loose
parts”, especially in primary schools. PlayPods are like “treasure chests” with
tons of resources and materials that stimulate the creativity of children and
encourages them to experiment with them, socialize while sharing these objects
and to enjoy their playtime.
This project is a collaboration between different
countries within the Erasmus+ “Outdoor Games and sustainable development in
educational structures” program, coordinated by the French organization La
Ligue de l’Enseignement. The initial programmatic premises of this project are
the ones that follow:
Time
dedicated to outdoor games in schools and play centres has been drastically
reduced. Schoolyards are usually the only space outdoors where children can
play freely. However, pedagogically speaking, schoolyards lack games, are
intrinsically chaotic and accidents happen in them. This makes them a very
stressful scenario for any team of educators. On the other hand, we observe
that the more objects our society produces, the more waste of all kinds is also
produced: unsold factory production, defective products, and objects that are
deemed unfashionable, which are reutilized and recycled in non-optimal ways. To
give an answer to these observations, our project bases itself on the approach
performed by Children’s Scrapstore in Britain. The project called
“Outdoor Games and Sustainable Development within Educational Structures”, is
therefore focused on achieving the following goals:
-
Transform
the human and physical environment outside educational structures, in order for
children to be able to live high-quality experiences during their
extra-curricular time by means of games aimed to reusing of objects;
-
Change
the appearance and nature of games within formal educational structures, in
order to improve our knowledge of the role and impact of games in the lives of
children, thus increasing their importance and promoting them.
The project
consists in the implementation of the Scrapstore PlayPod methodology both in French school and Leisure
centre and in Spanish nursery schools. The goal behind this international
collaboration goes beyond just knowledge exchange: It was critical for
measuring the impact of this pedagogical device in each location, in order to
adapt it to different local contexts and advise local entities about its
relevance for children’s development.
Six
organizations have collaborated in this project:
-
Children's
Scrapstore: creators of this innovative device.
-
Association Jouer pour Vivre (“Play to Live”
Association; France).
- La Ligue de l’Enseignement (“The Education
League”: A French social movement devoted to education).
- Encís: A cooperative devoted to offer
services to the people.
- Two
research institutions: Experice from University Paris 13- Sorbonne Paris Cité in
France and the Ferrer i Guàrdia Foundation in Spain.
Within this project, the
educational innovations tested in Britain have been transferred to France and
Spain as well as diagnoses have been performed on the exact situation of outdoor
games in education centres in these two countries.
In the two
countries and the three locations where the project was implemented, the
fieldwork was always given support by research teams that generated reports on
the application of the project in the different contexts. This document is the
synthesis of the two research reports from the French and the Spanish teams.
The order of
the presentation is from the closest from the Children's Scrapstore project,
France, to the farthest, Spain.
II. The
French research
The interest of the Scrapstore PlayPod
is undoubtedly related to the fact that it takes place in a cultural context
characterized by a certain number of evolutions of the children’s ways of
playing to which it is opposed and for which it offers alternatives. Among
those evolutions, one may quote:
- Objects and more particularly toys take up more and more space and
have greater importance in the children’s environment (Brougère, 2003).
- More and more urban ways of life reduce the space for outdoor
games and make the children go back to their bedroom or at least to their home
to play (Garnier 2015).
- Nowadays children develop very seldomly playful activities without
toys or games, that is to say without any support meant for this purpose.
- Toys are more and more elaborate as they have determined use as
regards their shapes and functioning.
By contrast, institutions welcoming
children seem to stand against those evolutions which mainly concern the family
sphere.
- The world of non-formal Education and leisure programs seems to
carry on putting on value to the historic model of play without support.
- The school environment functions on the deprivation mode of any
object other than academic even if some children’s culture elements are
sometimes tolerated.
In this context the Scrapstore PlayPod concept appears as a challenge while suggesting many objects to be used in the playground, and furthermore particular objects such as recycled and loose parts. Taking some distance from the toys’ offer or more generally manufactured recreational materials, but just as much from limits on material and objects in a playground, the PlayPod offers an unprecedented and experimental situation for children as well as for professionals and researchers.
1 – A few elements about the
approach, method and sites
The research on the French PlayPod—which
name is “Boîte à jouer” or Playbox
and we refer now with the English translation to make the difference with the
original Scrapstor PlayPod—does not position itself as an evaluation but rather
as what we prefer to call a scientific support of its implementation. An
evaluation would have needed to define beforehand what was needed to be
evaluated. Yet, the system consisting in making accessible to children under
certain conditions a whole set of recycled objects that have been carefully
chosen, is not common enough in France to have a preliminary evaluation grid.
Therefore, it consists in following this implementation and to document the way
it is carried out. Furthermore, a true evaluation would have demanded means
(sample groups furthermore all things being equal) we did not have, but above
all which may likely be criticised. Many means come and limit the logic of
evaluation: the sample group is incomparable with the experimental group,
interest of novelty which produces a positive effect hard to measure on the
experimental side, commitment of the observers in the experience, etc.
What we saw was sufficiently
interesting to imagine that an evaluation would have been positive on many
points, however we did not do this. We followed from the beginning (choice of
the site, meetings with the professionals, training of the teams) to the end
(closing up the Playbox at the end of observed periods) the implementation of
this system to see what was happening, how it happened, and what the different
participants had to say. Locating this implementation in its context is
essential to grasp differentiated effects according to the welcoming and
organization conditions.
From a methodological point of
view, we adopted an ethnographic approach which consists in being present, to
see and hear what is going on. It takes root in the importance of physical
presence (the researcher is present with the people he/she observes), a moment
of sharing, a form of participation in the situation, even if it is peripheral.
The four researchers therefore globally carried out more than 60 observations
before and after implementing the French PlayPod on the two sites. If this participation
is at a distance from the children’s, it is not very far from the adults’ that
are present during the same situations. It consists in a participative
observation, however with a participation will fully maintained in the margin
or a peripheral participation. If sight is essential, we supported it by taking
photos and making videos to be able to document what we saw and study it in
further details. Our work first and foremost emphasises on describing what the
children do as well as the adults who are supervising them in this venture
where all were equally involved.
This does not mean that we did not
pay careful attention to what some and others said, and on the grounds of our
observations we essentially asked them questions in the manner of collective
interviews (17 collective interviews carried out with children before and after
the implementation of the Playbox; 7 with the organisers and managers of the
two sites). If we take their words into account, it seems essential to relate
them to the actions, practices, whether recreational in some cases, or
professional otherwise. The research emphasizes practices, what the Playbox makes
one do, and in what manner it transforms (or not) those practices.
This ethnographic approach has
another essential consequence which consists in not generalising our results.
We study two “social settings” (Layder, 2006), two singular configurations (and
very different from one another), and the effects that we emphasize should not
be considered as valid outside these configurations. Of course, one may imagine
that in similar situations, many elements we emphasized could happen again, but
this remains to be checked. We are therefore far from any universal approach,
in particular of psychological order, which would aim at emphasizing phenomena
valid for all and in any place. We are developing a situated approach, where
elements of context, local practices, culture (of a country or a playground)
are taken into account.
It indeed consists in grasping how
a system (the word does not only refer to the material aspect—the Playbox and
the objects—but also to words and practices, in particular the training which
accompany it) initially developed within another cultural context (that of
England, of its schools and game cultures and recreation that are partly
different) may make sense, and be appropriate to a new context. This is the
process we call scientific support; seeing what is done, taking into account
singular situations, analysing them in depth which allows to draw theoretical
elements that are not a generalisation but conceptualisations from two
particular cases.
The experience concerns on the one
hand a Parisian primary school, Anselme, during the lunchtime break, which
refers back to the English model, on the other hand a suburban leisure centre
[a kind of afterschool program during
holidays], Tilleul, within a primary school.
The two locations chosen to carry
out this system are different. These differences stand mainly on several
aspects. One of the first differences is the moment chosen to open the Playbox.
At Anselme, the Playbox will be opened during the lunchtime break, during
school time, whereas at Tilleul, it will be used as a recreational support
during several periods of free time between activities, "in-between"
time within the leisure centre program, during the children’s holidays. Another
concerns the number of children; around 120 can play simultaneously in the
Anselme playground, or even more depending on the attendance of the workshops
opened at the same time, against around twenty at Tilleul, the whole of them
gathered in the playground without any concurrent activity offered, except
playing in the playground at something else than the Playbox. Finally we may
underline a difference concerning the pedagogical project and the organiser
team. Whereas a team, at Anselme, is working with a pedagogical project
collectively elaborated and thought about through experiences, the other team,
at Tilleul, seems to have more difficulty on this point, with a less elaborated
project and a management which does not unite its team around it.
Finally, several major elements
that refer as much to temporality (succession of periods of using the Playbox throughout
the day and not only during lunchtime; activity developed during the school
holidays and no longer throughout the year) as to the aim (no longer recreation
as opposed to school time, but free time opposed to an organised time run by
the organisers), or even to the number of children, mark a distance of one of
the experiments from the English model, which shows adaptation problems on
which we will come back.
2 –
Children’s practices
Transformation
of space
You just need a glance to see what
extent the Playbox took in particular in the playground at Anselme. A few
minutes after opening it, objects are everywhere and all the spaces in the
playground are busy with various installations and games. Only the hall and
toilets are not invaded, insofar as the rules established by the professionals
forbid it. Objects are everywhere in the playground—or nearly—and above all in
every nook and cranny. This no doubt one of the interests of the Playbox which
in a certain manner makes the best use of the space while allowing a better
occupancy. The corners and more widely the periphery of the playground are as a
matter of fact particularly interesting for the children because they allow
them to lean their installations against a gate or a fence which are used as
supports but also mainly to delimit a space, which makes the corners even more
interesting.
Observations before the Playbox allow
understanding that the Playbox gives a chance to bypass rules of using the
space which sometimes appeared very strict. At the Tilleul leisure centre, the
children have for example taken over a space usually banned by passing through
a gate and setting up on the grass which has not right of access except to go
and fetch a ball thrown too far. In the case of the Anselme School, the playing
area developed as far as behind and even inside the hut set up to store
objects. In the two playgrounds, groups of children set up according to their
liking as they lay down their objects and the distribution of spaces hardly
ever causes any problem.
Access to the objects
The system put forward leads to a
veritable rush to the Playbox. As soon as they are out in the playground, the
children rush to get hold of the objects that they covet in order to play at
what they like the most. The first there manage to have choice strategies more
targeted according to the desire of the moment. In this rush, the most popular
objects and in particular the biggest, such as a wheelchair and pushchairs, are
monopolised in priority all the more as they have been placed in front of the Playbox
to allow an easier access to the other objects. Access to objects is more
complicated at Anselme School for those who come last and find an empty or
nearly empty box.
In the case of Tilleul leisure
centre, the modalities for access have been slightly modified, as the shape of
the Playbox and its size compelled the professionals to reduce direct access to
the children. Before its opening, the objects were laid on the ground on a
quite big surface area which allowed several children to help themselves
simultaneously. As the number of children was sometimes very reduced, on
certain days, nearly all of them had the possibility to be in front of the Playbox
at the same time, which theoretically made the choice and sharing easier. But
the fact is that practices revealed to be quite close.
The two modalities of the system
lead to develop strategies of acquisition of objects: it consists in taking
possession of objects and accumulating them, sharing them with one’s team
players, exchanging and swopping, even, failing this, pinching them. These
issues were the subject matter of long discussions during the interviews.
However, one may also consider this logic of accumulation and this object hunt,
“Gotta catch 'em all”, as the first game or the global
game of the Playbox. If children may first wish to have access to the most
desired objects, in particular objects with wheels, failing this, the strategy
of accumulation corresponds to the specificity of the Playbox; the children
take as many objects as possible and see in a second step what to do with them.
Accumulation may have surprised
even shocked the adults, but this refers back to the nature of the material
where their functions are not determined in advance. Accumulating leads to making
piles, managing deposits, gathering treasures and then engaging a whole lot of actions.
The objects owner may either use them, or exchange them to access a more
desired or useful object for him, but exchanging is difficult when the children
have the same projects and the same view on desirability. Swopping is a game as
it can be seen among a group who say having taken as many objects as possible
to make an "exchange stand"
or a "giant barter market".
Exchanging becomes a game which consists solely in passing the objects around independently
of their use.
From this accumulation limiting
access to objects results activities of object hunting. However the border is
weak between picking up, hunting and pinching, all the more as pinching is
generalised and the person who is being robbed may also be a robber. However,
is it really robbery? The children willingly say it is not when it is after
all.
Are we in or out of the game? The
interest of such a situation is to be at the border, it may be a game for one
but not for the other who is going to complain or cry. The organisers are
sensitive to these conflicts noticing at the same time they do not last, they
do not degenerate as opposed to more personal conflicts before the setting up
of the Playbox. Mediation of the object would therefore play its role as
avoiding too strong a relationship between two children in favour of a
relationship through an object, what is more without any value. Of course, some
children may have a different view, showing the seriousness of these conflicts,
and robberies, however they transform them just as much in epic adventures as
soon as one asks them to talk about their practices in the interviews.
In order to stop the nuisance of
the robbers and the disappearance of the accumulation of objects, the children
looked for watchmen who in certain situations were deprived of any play. The
situation being often very unfavourable to younger children led to the
intervention of the organisers and the children had to find other modalities,
for example that the watchman became player (was authorized to play) or even
that children of different ages and forms could be associated in the game, when
the lunch hour is shifted as at Anselme.
Catching, taking, accumulating,
pinching or keeping in certain conditions are structurally part of the logic of
the game, allowing to develop a game of monopole, a “Monopoly”, a playful initiation to capitalistic economy
(paradoxical with recycled objects). As a matter of fact, the Playbox offers an
abundance of material linked to the principle of recycling material which does
not cost anything, and seems to allow unlimited consumption. However, this
abundance, as we saw, leads to accumulation by some, which systematically
produces artificial shortages. Therefore, some accumulate while others lack,
however this remains a game in the sense that the lack remains in the scope of
the game and everything is (or should be) set back to zero at every new break.
Accumulation with the whole of the
actions it leads to, including wars and looting we will talk about later, is
indeed a central element, the Playbox game, to be distinguished from the games
each object allows. If each child, individually or within a group, plays with
certain objects, one may consider that collectively the whole of the children
involved play the Playbox game, one of the most outstanding games from what the
children say, even if certain actions being at the border of game and no-game
may be rejected by some as game. This reminds that play is first and foremost a
matter of framing, of meaning given to the activities carried out and there may
be, as we saw, conflict of interpretation.
Exploring
affordances
For many objects not well defined
by their appearance, it means taking them and seeing afterwards what one can do
with them. After the initial Accumulation, exploration will be the answer. The
child is in front of objects with which he/she can play but which may not as
easily as toys, reveal at first sight, the actions that may result from them.
Hence the recurring question “what am I going to do with this?” which refers to
exploration of affordances, that is to say not only finding out what an object
can do, which refers to usual forms of exploration, but what we can do with the
object which refers to exploration with a playful purpose or exploration of
playful affordances. We already mentioned a general playful affordance through
object accumulation and hunt.
One may raise the subject of the affordance of the box itself, explored and exploited by the children inside as much as outside with the area (called “tunnel”) that it contributes to create with the playground fence. As far as objects are concerned, affordances lead to discovering the production of sound (blowing, drumming), making a barrel roll with a child inside, protecting oneself with a sheet, making a roof out of it, using a hose as a weapon and the dustbin lid as a shield,… We cannot mention the whole of the discoveries, however two essential elements must be noted. Affordances are not solely linked to objects taken separately however, on the one hand to their association (a reel and a big hose can make a cannon), on the other hand to objects in the playground environment (the swing is the meeting between trees, a rope and a hose).
Once the objects are accumulated, once
certain affordances are explored, many objects are not used alone (a privilege
for some of them in particular rolling objects); one operation consists in
associating them beyond sheer contiguity of accumulation, which consists in
making piles and protecting them. One may distinguish three main types of
layout: installations, assemblies and constructions.
The first minimum operation is the
installation, that is to say putting up together objects sometimes simply for
the sake of putting together (as in cases of sculptures or structures with a
purely aesthetic aspect or of sheer layouts). The most frequent installation
consists in creating areas, delineating places, without one being able to speak
about a construction (using material as a carpet, different objects for
delineating, etc.). This refers to a primary hut, the one evoked by Dominique
Bachelart (2012, p.20) “Delineating an area can be basic. It does not yet
consist in a construction, rather a delimitation, a ‘surrounding’ […]. The
barely outlined contour gives form to an inside and an outside.”
The installation becomes more
complicated and makes sense when it is not only about installing or delineating
an area but also when settling oneself down, making it possible to have an
activity inside the set limits. This type of installation using materials, foam
elements, lamp shades, decoration elements has often been seen and consists in
marking a border between the inside and outside of the installation and to
confer a little meaning to this inside (office area for example with keyboards
and telephones). The objects are laid down, put one next to the other, with an
oscillation between a choice, a clear logic and random effect which consists in
using what has been recycled. One game consists in being in an appropriate
marked area (objects being used to appropriate, to mark the space) with
friends. What is striking is the permanent evolution of a good number of
installations: new objects appear, others disappear, their organisation changes
and sometimes the whole lot undergoes a “removal” the logic of which one does
not always understand except that a more attractive nook becomes available or
is discovered. Mobility of the activities is an essential feature of the system
in convergence with the logic of the playground where children appear to be
very mobile.
Another object association
approach: assembling which consists in no longer simply laying down, installing
but associating, gathering together, that is to say making elements
interdependent, and ideally in view of an action. Mention may also be made of a
few examples often observed; one concerning rolling with objects to be dragged
or on which to settle up to be rolled (like a kart or a cannon), the other
concerning sliding with the realisation of circuits (marble runs or others),
however the most frequent assembly aims at swinging oneself by realising (after
many trials) more and more appropriate assemblies (rope with a cylinder or
tyre) to make swings.
Assembling refers to a more complex
analysis of affordances, as it consists in not only discovering the affordance
of an object but also of the layout, assembly of a system, the affordance
resulting from the child’s action, from the assembly.
Construction which constitutes the
third type of association is difficult to distinguish from the assembly however
we will keep it for more ambitious logics than assembly of a limited number of
pieces to make a new object. It consists in more complicated systems, which
unlike installations, imply the construction, interdependence of components
(mainly with ropes) and a certain sustainability. This is the case of huts
which need a roof layout or even interior arrangements. Construction implies the existence of a
project and to do so objects sometimes need to be fetched to complete those one
disposes of. Building huts is a central activity on the two sites all the more
as it can then be developed into various games using the hut. However, one may
underline that the constructions have a tendency to never be finished, to
always be changed, modified, improved, in a process of continuous evolution.
For these constructions, problems need to be constantly solved with available
resources (objects of the Playbox and playground layout), the solutions found
may be then taken up by others. If one associates creativity and problem
solving, this is indeed a creative action.
Objects that make sense: interpreting
The game is not only doing, it also
refers to the sense one gives to what one is doing, which evokes pretending or
symbolic game. It seems to us that the notion of interpretation is most capable
to understand this movement. Objects give room for interpretations with the
double meaning of playing a role and giving sense.
One finds a great many
interpretations starting with object hunting becoming a war between clans, but
also all the actions which, while acting, give sense to this action which is
not reduced to what is done: one may mention the net becoming the gladiator’s
weapon or the fisherman’s within seconds.
One may therefore consider that
children build symbolic spaces like offices related to the use of computer
keyboards and telephones, domestic spaces where everyday life is developed
which can consist in playing “neighbours” between huts, or, with a hint of
irony, “play the teenagers”. Others will prefer to play the “baddies” or
restage Star Wars scenes. Finally, during several days, many children (among
the oldest) from Anselme gave life to a massage parlour where the whole of the
activity was featured from appointment making up to the massage. This example enables to underline the
collective dimension of most of the games, usually isolated children were
regularly integrated. Concrete realisations and constructions of sense imply a
major collaboration even if that may sometimes take the form of a more or less
playful conflict.
To finish, one must underline that usual game categories (such as symbolic game, construction, with rules) that one can find as activity dimensions are little adapted in the analysis of a game which is extremely labile and mobile, multifaceted. The game transforms itself and combines different dimensions. The types of games are scrambled, intertwining these different dimensions such as construction, installation, mobility, accumulation, exploration, symbolisation or interpretation.
One may undoubtedly put this in
relation with the idea that such material offers little preliminary script,
that is to say few scopes which predefine the legitimate activity with an
object as a doll or a figurine from a cartoon may do (without assuming that the
player will follow the script). Here no or little script, at the most evident
affordances in certain cases, but to be discovered more often through
explorations.
The consequence is that the game
falls into the category of an open performance, which leads to encourage a variety
of actions according to affordances perceived and interpretations carried out. Children
constantly discover new affordances or suggest new interpretations through
original performances in regards to the previous ones. But in doing so, a repertoire
of practices is developed within the playground and one may imagine that a
longer duration of the presence of such a system (with the same objects,
however, the Playbox has the advantage of enabling the introduction of new
objects that are different from the previous ones) may lead to define scripts,
uses becoming legitimate within the children community. On the period observed
at Anselme (Tilleul is not concerned because of a very limited duration of the
experience), even if one may see this repertoire starting to form itself, it is
still the invention of performances often new within the school that marks the
uses. However, a repertoire of practices is formed around the use of mobile
objects, the assembly of swings or cannons, hut building, construction of symbolic
games such as the desk. But, at the end of the observation period, that repertoire
remains open and the use of the PlayPod remains marked by the diversity of
games and their lability. The latter is perhaps fundamental in so far as it
adapts itself well to break time, its temporal logic and fragmentation.
Changing games, partners, mobility are truly compatible with what the Playbox offers.
These are precisely these aspects that may have lacked at Tilleul and must therefore
lead to think about an adaptation of the system in a different context to that
of the school lunchtime.
3 –
Professional practices
The Playbox as a complicated system
not only associating the object but also associated trainings and framework
tools of professional practices, does not refer to activity traditions as
developed in France but rather to playwork.
If the latter defines itself as game facilitation, while encouraging children’s
initiatives, it is not a “wait and see approach” as this has often been
interpreted by French organisers following trainings. It promotes interventions
under condition they support the game progress or even its development while
keeping an eye on the risks incurred and conflict resolution or more precisely
its progress with neither risk nor conflict. It is compatible with suggestions
if need be to offer new play possibilities when the latter are neither
perceived nor set up by the children. However, it avoids any intervention
dismissing the children’s logic of the play by substituting to it other
configurations proper to the adults. This position is far from being easy all
the more as it is in contradiction with the professional positions of the
organisers who are in charge of the whole of the children’s leisure time. They
globally fluctuate between on the one hand simply keeping an eye without
intervening in the children’s play except to punish (particularly developed
during the lunchtime or free time at the leisure centre) even if it can be
accepted to join in a game upon the children’s request, and on the other hand
the organisation of a game or activity by the adults where at most the child is
free to chose among a range of activities. Playwork
is neither one nor the other even if a good supervision combined with playful
interactions can be a first step in this direction.
However, relating to their
professional cultures, the manner the training was received, but also the
presence of the initiators of the experience, the organisers rather have a
tendency to adopt a wait-and-see attitude fearing that their interventions
should not be in compliance with what was expected, limiting them to what they
consider as hazardous situations.
Their actions are far from what was
suggested during the training: “Move, Observe, Think, Act”. When moving
permanently, they can therefore understand what is going on in many places as
stoppages of play, changes, reconfigurations of groups, etc. It therefore
consists in following playful activities and according to occasions, support
them while adding what is needed to nourish and develop them through
environment modifications, suggestions—or more simply let the actions happen
without intervening. As a matter of fact, the action "acting" is
carried out as a last resort provided that the children’s playful activities
are well understood.
With another interpretation,
the organisers may have observed however from “fixed” often peripheral points,
and moved punctually in particular to respond to the children’s requests. Most
of their interventions concerned practices they thought too risky and reminding
of the new rules set for a more moderate use of the introduced objects. We rarely had the chance to observe
tools and protocols given during training to do these interventions and the
organisers assessed they neither necessarily had the time nor the availability
to do it. On other occasions, they estimated that “it would not work” with
these children.
Yet, the main objective of the
intervention of the playworker is not
to “break” the pending playflow (“adulteration”,
playwork term that designates the more or less brutal stop of the flow after
adult intervention or a break in the functioning). Even in case of risky
practices, his/her positive mode of interventions brings the children to
imagine new ways of playing which take into account the said risks…
Supervision therefore took over all
the more as it was also driven by the fear of accidents and conflicts. The
feeling of a more intense work than usual is also noted, related to increased
vigilance. On the one hand, the presence of a great number of objects including
certain, in particular rolling objects, that are considered as hazardous, on
the other hand, led to make supervision of the playground more complicated.
Through the abundance created by the Playbox, the playground was no longer
related to a mastered framework constructed mainly to make supervision easier.
The positive view of the children’s activity, the feeling that accidents,
conflicts and punishments decreased, led undoubtedly to progressively limit
this tension for most organisers but not all of them. To this is added the
abandonment of usual forbidden things in the playground in favour of very
general rules (not to be in danger, not to put others in danger) which supposes
a constant evaluation of situations no longer for but with the
children. In the absence of such a difficult co-construction to develop for the
professionals, practices changed between imposing rules and withdrawing them
which could but puzzle the children as to understand what was allowed or not.
The vague situation did not however stop them from finding arrangements to
develop an action adapted to the situation, some of them asking in an interview
for the possibility to regulate by themselves their actions.
Clearing up which is globally done
at the end and according to observations has always been done in reasonable
time, posed a problem at Anselme as some children showed resistance after a few
weeks and tended to avoid this moment. Only team coordination and time of
reflection on action would have allowed to find solutions, and there again that
was lacking.
4 – Appropriation and positive view
On the two experiment sites, it
consists in an appropriation of the Playbox in a “social setting” (Layder,
2006), that is to say the immediate environment of the located activity. Yet,
as we mentioned it, it consists of two different social settings marked by “the
local aggregation of social relationships, positions and reproduced practices”
(Layder, 2006: 280). There the logics of the past influence the behaviours of
the present, hence the necessity of an observation prior to the arrival of the Playbox.
Both structures and their practices tightly linked to space and time
organisation produce in situ (located) practices that frame the way of
appropriation of the Playbox.
We observed this appropriation in
the activities. The children appropriated the Playbox through their games,
those concerning the Playbox as a whole as well as those that are specifically
supported by an object or a whole set of objects; they gave the Playbox sense
through interpretations they create in situation. This appropriation is also
generated by the abundant speech on the Playbox, most of the time enthusiastic,
sometimes critical on one point or the other. Admittedly, some children were
not appealed by the Playbox and sometimes preferred football, others played
with it then went back at least partially to other activities. The older ones
set up a distance at the end of the period, the distance of those whose passing
to secondary school suddenly shows they are bigger and encourages them to play
communication games distinguishing them from the smaller children. The Playbox is
not intended to federate the whole of the children, but rather to offer an
activity among others or to enrich the one already there that often remain at
an embryonic state failing resources, and therefore avoid some children getting
bored by lack of suggestions.
A perspective between the two
experiments shows that a balance between activities allows on the one hand to
prevent saturation of the Playbox and disappointments that may result from it,
failing to be able to access the material, and on the other hand to offer real
choices to the children. Appropriating the Playbox is also trivialising it,
making it an activity among others which one may choose only when one wishes
and not because it consists in the sole possible activity. However, one must
not minimise the enthusiasm and strong interest the Playbox created among some
children, in particular at Anselme, as is seen in the disappointment on rainy
days when it is not open or the April’s fools joke imagined by the school
Headmaster.
Appropriating the Playbox is also
sharing activities, developing common practices, a repertoire that broadens
progressively even if after a period of inventiveness in the first days,
reproducing may then take over. However, with such objects, that moreover
evolve through deterioration or renewal, it hardly consists of identical
reproducing. To reproduce, one must often solve problems for the lack of the
material which was used for the previous constructions or assemblies. This
appropriation of the Playbox by the children is more evident at Anselme because
of the longer time and a situation adapted to the system. The children also
appropriated the Playbox at the Tilleul leisure centre despite a least
favourable situation which invites the actors to a reflection on the place and
implementation modalities of such a system in a leisure centre and/or with
fewer children.
The management and organisers team
also appropriated the Playbox by developing more or less new professional
practices, sometimes with a few difficulties related to the difference of the
system as regards French recreational traditions. Their speeches on that
experience also show this appropriation even if they may show the tensions it
creates. As a matter of fact during interviews, they highlight positive aspects
of the Playbox: game mixing children from different forms and age groups and
for Tilleul from different districts; less isolated children; if there are
conflicts about the objects, they are minor conflicts in contrast with those
that previously appeared in the playground; children are happy and less bored;
they are creative and autonomous. Risk taking may be a worry even if some admit
that this is part of the educational objectives of breaktime.
The organisers were sensitive to
the interest of the Playbox for the children and willingly mention the positive
effects. If they can relate their difficulties, they do not relate negative
effects. Hence, one finds a difference with the point of view of the English
educators during the Scrapstore Playpod experiment (Armitage, 2009) who
considered as a negative effect the fighting games with the Playpod objects,
which led some of them to consider putting an end to it, but fortunately other
games then replaced those ill accepted games. On the French side fight games
were accepted on condition that the fighting involved object versus object. We
did not feel an “ideological” refusal of playful fight, but rather the idea
that it was part of the children’s playing culture.
If a synthesis of the assessments
of the actors needed to be carried out, it would be a positive one. The few elements
gathered from the parents are along the same lines, and this also applies to
the teachers although they are not much concerned by the experiment.
5 –
Differences between lunchtime break and leisure centre
The comparison between the school
context and that of the leisure centre allows understanding better the
principles of the Playbox system mostly designed for lunchtime break. All the
more so as we were able to observe the opening of the Playbox at the Anselme
leisure centre, which uses the same premises and the same playground with the
same recreational team as for the lunchtime break. Before going into depth in
the differences between these two contexts, one must underline they share
common points on the presence of objects, space and the organisation pattern.
On the two sites of the experiment,
the welcoming space of the children is the same as the leisure centres very
often take place within schools premises that are vacant by principle during
holidays. As opposed to what one may expect because of the diversity of
activities at the leisure centre, one may note a relative similarity in
material management and the minor place it is given. Here, as often but perhaps
in a more asserted manner, the toys and more widely the playing material
supports are not much present in the playground and are reduced to ritual
objects like balls and skipping ropes (in limited numbers). In both cases, the
children bring along a few personal objects (Pokémon cards for example)
however, always slightly sneakily by playing with the regulation bans.
As far as formalisation is
concerned, there again as opposed to what is expected in relation to the
dimension of welcome leisure during holiday periods, one may note a temporal
organisation very strongly copied on that of the school with constraint
activity time and time said free, or “in-between” which strongly resemble
breaktime, typical break within the school framework. This pre-cutting led the
team to ask themselves many times “when do we open the Playbox?” In the end, with
one or two exceptions, the half day at the beginning of each week to discover
the system, the Playbox was opened solely during “in-between” times. As though
it could not overlap with the time of activities or outings thus reinforcing
the similarity between both experiment contexts whereas welcome on complete
leisure days would have allowed other modalities.
The first difference is
nevertheless on temporality in terms of duration of use. At the Anselme school
the Playbox offers actions for the children on a very rhythm-based and limited
time: the duration of the opening of the Playbox is one hour and a half,
however, considering lunchtime and clearing up time, in reality each child only
has around one hour to play. The school context with its ruling power imposes
these constraints to be accepted by the children without any possible
negotiation. The institutional passage between lunchtime break and school also
imposes that the Playbox should be closed and put away… At Tilleul, the rhythm
is different in the sense that there are three to four “free time” periods that
may be used to play with the Playbox, within a less constraining framework
concerning schedule except at lunchtime. The Playbox could be opened in the
morning (8.30-9.30), used again at the end of the morning after the activity
(11.30-12), then after lunch before the activity (1-2) and after the afternoon
snack up until most children’s departure (4.30-5.30). According to the weather
but also according to priorities given to such and such activity/outing (and
also undoubtedly a little bit according to the organisers’ motivations), the Playbox
was opened between three or four hours a day, which contrasts with the
relatively reduced duration at Anselme.
Moreover, storage at the end of
each period is unnecessary as—except on very rare occasions—the playground is
at the entire disposal of the leisure centre. The initial system was thereby
modified as storage was ruled to take place only at the end of the day instead
of after each game period. But obviously this adjustment does not go without
managing difficulties over a long playing session. Thus, children who could not
have obtained objects at the opening of the Playbox could not obtain them in
the remaining play time, as the Playbox rule was that whoever took an object
could hang on to it for as long as they wished. So, the lack of regular storage
did not allow the “reset” observed at
Anselme which regularly clears the (property) timers and reopens the game of
"Catch them all" or of accumulation… but also the discovery of
objects that could be recovered by the children among those which remained available.
So, for want of “reset” objects may
have been taken as their own, or even monopolized by children, and all the more
so as the organisers did not try to find a way to compensate this want. The
phenomenon is even increased by the meals organisation. At Anselme the fact
that the students have to take their meals in turn allows a regular rhythm of
giving up objects that can be reclaimed by other children present in the
playground or coming out of the canteen. Whereas at Tilleul, the collective
school meal—as well as the activities organised for all the children—do not
give the children a chance to leave, or reclaim objects during the allocated
time. Moreover, whereas Anselme has an offer of other workshops in parallel
(drawing, library, toy library), the leisure centre at Tilleul gathered all the
children in the playground without any other offer. The children who did not
“catch on” the Playbox, partly owing to that difficulty of access to the
objects, then resorted to the usual, or indeed ritual, ball games including
football.
This increase in the opening time
of the Playbox together with a smaller number of children and a more limited
diversity of the objects seemed to result in what may sometimes have appeared
as a certain loss of activity. This seems corroborated by the less regular
rhythm of the Anselme Playbox when it was opened during leisure centre time on
Wednesday afternoons as one free activity among an offer of different
activities or outings. Lengthy period and low number of children seem to deeply
modify the Playbox logic and should require consideration in view to suggest
adjustments. The observed practices show that considering the amount of free
time available during the day or indeed the week, as opposed to school context,
playing possibilities can be increased, particularly by combining construction
and symbolic game. Yet playing material (in number and diversity) and most of
all accompaniment from the organisers must be adapted to that new way of
playing. There cannot be any doubt that in this context the playwork model should fully play its
role, in order to remedy the lack of support which was noted from the part of
the organisers who did not try to facilitate and feed the children’s play and
constructions as much as could be considered.
Lastly, it seems that another less
visible difference may play an important role: the presence of friends. At
Anselme, and at school in general, children meet the friends with whom they
will elaborate games during breaks. We could observe the stability of numerous
groups of children, in particular within the same school level, and several of
the older children were also to tell us that they had known their friends since
the 1st or 2nd school year. These affinities and the relationships
with the opposed sex help building their stories and games which they do not
share with anybody (Delalande, 2001). At the leisure centre, the children do
not necessarily meet with their friends owing to its feeble attendance, but
also to the fact that the children come from three different primary schools.
Whereas some may rely on the presence of brothers or sisters, others have to
cope with children they do not know, or know very little. Even though the
organisers reckoned that the social mix between the different school origins
was stronger, the children nearly always named their school friends as their
favourite playing partners.
Therefore in addition to the
culture gap between English approach and English practise (in particular where playwork is concerned) there is now a
functional gap. Whereas between Anselme and the English system there is a
culture gap, we find no functional gap owing to the near similarity of the
lunchtime break on either side of the Channel. At Tilleul, the culture gap is
still there, possibly even more crying because the implementation of playwork would have made it possible to
solve some of the problems mentioned, yet not all of them. In addition there is
an important functional gap concerning the number of children, the time
duration and distribution dedicated to the Playbox, its connection with the
other activities inasmuch as it is no longer class as opposed to recreation.
There remains a need for reflection on the adjustment of the Playbox in the
context of a leisure centre: which specific rules, which accompaniment, which
duration? This would undoubtedly imply to reconsider the daily timetable
bearing in mind the presence of the Playbox. What activities, or offers, in
parallel or as a complement to the Playbox? It is also necessary to give
thought to the adjustment of the contents and the quantity of objects depending
both on the number of children and the amount of access time they are allowed.
6 – Prospects and conclusions from
the French implementation
The educative question
The system is proposed as a means
of enriching break time with new games offers. It does not appear as an
educative system except if we refer to the myth of the educative play
(Brougère, 2005). That seems to be a good point and it is important to keep the
system clear of the “educativist” inflation of the child’s leisure time
(Brougère 2016a). The fact remains that in France the concept of leisure is
saturated with speeches on education and the necessity of educational projects
(Roucous, 2007); the Playbox will have to find its place against this strong
background of educative prospect.
Yet, we would like to point to a
paradox. On the one hand, both extra curricular structures must have an
educational project, and do have a very general one about what is commonly
called “socialisation”. On the other hand, the organisers withdraw from
whatever could be an educational role in favour of a supervising one. In a
certain way, they showed some difficulty, indeed a refusal owing to a lack of
time, to consider an (other) educational posture. As a matter of fact the suggestions
of intervention made to them as for the PlayPod (intervention in case of risk
by drawing the children’s attention, methods of conflicts resolution) propose
an educational action which they do not take up. This reduces the educational
result of the process which refers back to the idea of an implication of the
children in the definition of the legitimate practices.
One perceives, from the fact of the
organisers’ withdrawal, a lack of educational investment in the implementation
of the system. All the same, is the system void of any educational interest?
Certainly not, and when the organisers mention creativity and autonomy, or
sharing, they point out an educational dimension. But because of the context of free time/recreation,
it is an informal educational situation (Brougère, 2016b). Indeed, one can
recognize learning situations but they take place without the purpose of
learning, as co-products of the playing situation (Brougère, 2005).
The most obvious one, and in conjunction
with a whole lot of literature upon the subject, is that of the exploration of
affordances. The child discovers the objects, their operational modes, their
possible usages, and this exploration is a continuous learning process which
goes on until the end of the period when one has even more new possibilities of
action to discover.
Another learning process is linked
to the importance of cooperation to realize constructions and scenarios too.
This imply action coordination with others, and therefore a learning process of
cooperation which is not always valued in the French school context.
One can also mention risk
management. Moving from absolute prohibition to the enforcement of a general
rule suggests a reflection process, certainly not always present, between the
consequences of the action and this general rule.
Some mentioned creativity, but it
refers back mainly to the exploration of affordances. It may be associated to
problems solving, particularly in the case of constructions and assemblies.
Then a trial an error learning process is being developed.
One may therefore consider that
through the presence of objects that are different from the ones the children
are usually confronted with, the Playbox system offers a diffuse education
(Brougère, 2016b), education through environment, objects, and other children. The
adults could take part in this diffuse or informal education but only do so
marginally. The playworker can then
be considered as an informal educator, whereas the French organiser hesitates
between the absence of educational role (supervision, and letting things
happen) and a formalisation of the educational role on a near school model
through activities the educational targets of which will have precisely been
defined (certainly very quickly forgotten in the heat of the moment).
Children’s
involvement
The Scrapstore PlayPod pedagogy
implies requesting the children’s involvement, seeking their advice, avoid
imposing rules or limit the rules that one imposes. It is a question of
allowing them a full participation in line with the International Convention of
the Children’s rights, too rarely taken into account in the French school
context and hardly more in the organised leisure context. The Convention
stipulates that one must seek the children’s advice on everything that concerns
them, which does not mean—as some pretend to believe—that their advice will
systematically prevail, but at least that it will be known. Yet they are
particularly concerned with recreation, leisure, and play. Furthermore the Scrapstore
PlayPod is designed in a leading country in terms of legislation as well as the
practice of taking children into account and children’s participation (Clark
& Moss, 2001).
Children’s involvement is at the
very heart of the principle of the proposed approach which consists in
encouraging children to find their own solutions, but as we have seen, such an
approach is far from being generalised. It is therefore necessary to reflect
upon devices to be implemented so that the children may take part in the
definition of the terms of use of the Playbox. Must one have a Playbox council,
a lunchtime break or a leisure centre one, an extracurricular council? Must one use pre-existing devices that may
not be well adapted or develop more informal processes? It is not for the
researchers to say what should be convenient but it is up to each team to find
out the best way in which they can involve the children. Such a recommendation
may be in keeping with the will of some town councils, Paris included, to
develop participative spaces with the children.
This logic of children’s
involvement has to be implemented in a general way. The adults must avoid
wanting, for example, to regulate access to the objects, even though this issue
is very present in France as well as in England. Thus, having to face the rush
during experimentation related by Marc Armitage (2009), some schools initiated
form by form shifts, making it impossible for children from different forms to
play together. An adult’s logic was regulating a problem which very quickly
happened to be solved by the children themselves in their playing dynamics
(particularly through cooperation in the midst of groups) and the shifts were
very quickly abandoned.
One of the main elements of the
philosophy underlying the system leaves up to the children the choice of what
they are going to do with the objects. It is important they should not receive
them from the adults but that they should themselves find the objects even
though the Playbox may be abandoned in favour of doing something else in case
of disappointment (the Playbox is not intended to be the sole occupational
offer in a playground). It is just as fundamental that they should try and
regulate by themselves unequal distributions, which should not stop an adult to
discuss it with them in order to help them find a solution. It is not a
question of defining a type of children’s involvement which would lead to
establish rules on which one should not backtrack, but rather to endeavour to
make of the dynamic of participating to the definition and reconfiguration of
situations a constant element, which means to leave ample room for decision
making in situation, in a mainly informal rather than formal way.
Objects before all
This analysis shows the importance
of the object in the structuration of play. The absence of objects always
entails a risk of transforming the playground into a recreational desert. The
researchers associated here always had in view to emphasise the importance of
the objects in order to understand the play, whatever object there may be. Play
is a confrontation with culture, and for a significant part with material
culture.
In the original concept, the child
is confronted to separate elements (loose
parts), recovered objects, which have therefore lost their function and
original sense and allow the child to attribute them new functions and new
significances that may vary according to the moment and the assemblies. These
elements constitute the very basis of the system and grant it a specificity by
comparison with other spaces available to the children for playing, which are
organised around permanent facilities (playing areas, amusement parks) or
playing objects that are finished and commercialized (toy libraries). Such an importance of the
material together with its originality make it necessary to reflect upon the
funds or stock about both its constitution and its management. Inspired from
the English model, the selection aims at a certain diversity to enrich the
playing possibilities. The Tilleul experiment shows the necessity to pay
attention to the composition and quantity of each type of elements, in
particular when the number of children is reduced. The distribution of the
objects has to be thought about without remaining on a mere proportionality, as
certain objects have to be paired, others grouped by larger numbers so as to
offer the best potential.
Lastly the choice was made to
systematically include in the Playbox finished objects fit for direct use in a
near ready-made recreational function. This is the case for the pushchairs and
even more so for the wheelchair. These are indeed the most problematic objects,
the perceptible risk not being counterbalanced by a creative action as opposed
to the kart made by assembly for instance.
We do not mean to criticize that
choice which had positive effects where playing is concerned (in particular at
Tilleul where they provided real momentum) but attracted a lot of criticisms. A
reflection must be developed on this choice. Can such objects take their place
in the basic configuration of the Playbox, or else must they not be options for
teams likely to reflect on the place of wheeled objects in general in a
playground (inasmuch as there may be other solutions)?
It obviously is important to engage
a reflection upon all the possibilities of structuring children’s play: beside
the Playbox, what is the part played by elements of structure (configuration of
the playground with fences, trees, etc.; play structures; spaces for sport) and
other finished objects (balls, skipping ropes, wheeled objects, toys, board
games, or construction games)? But also what place to be given to the child’s
objects? The Playbox centres the reflection on the object, but it implies a
risk to obliterate a more general reflection on the playground objects if one
should consider that the only legitimate objects are the Playbox’s.
Localize
Appropriating the Playbox is giving
it a local sense, proper to each social
setting, which refers back to several dimensions.
It is essential for the box to be a
project backed by a close-knit unanimous team. It can only be a team project
and it is not advisable to install it without the support of the organisers
teams (and even further) even if they are already formed. We saw clearly that
the project had a much better support from the Anselme than from the Tilleul
team. Appropriation is only possible on this condition.
It also means that adults and
children give it a local sense linked to the general configuration of available
activities within which the Playbox is integrated, but also to its taking root
through the gradual construction of a legitimate repertoire of practices (for
the children and the adults as well). Success is not linked to the fact that
all the children would do the same things here or there, but on the contrary to
the fact that the Playbox develops practices that differ (at least partly)
according to each situation. The differences of conditions from one site to the
other showed, beyond similarities, the construction of two very different repertoires.
The legitimate repertoire of practices inventory may be considered as the local
appropriation of the Playbox by a group of children and adults.
III.
The Spanish research
1 – The site: La Lluna Infant School (Manresa, Barcelona)
La Lluna is an infant school belonging
to the city town and managed by the Encís cooperative. This infant
school has one group of students for each age group supervised ny a preschool
teacher. The total number of students is 41 children that were distributed as
follows during the 2015-2016 academic year:
-
Infants
(0- to 1-year-olds, P1), 1 girl and 7 boys
-
Toddlers
(1- to 2-year-olds, P2). 7 girls and 6 boys
-
Older
toddlers (2- to 3-year-olds, P3). 12 girls y 8 boys
The school’s teaching philosophy is to
improve the abilities of children with traditional toys as well as others
produced from natural recycled materials. In Catalonia the use of materials
recycled for education in general and, specifically, for playing is a very
consolidated tradition. It is noteworthy that many recycled parts used for
student playing materials are of natural origin (except for tires). In the
project of this specific centre special care is given to the aesthetics of the
objects used as well as of the spaces. This factor was extremely relevant in
the implementation of the PlayPod, as we show later.
Time scheduling of this center
is as follows:
-
9:00-9:30: Students arrival
During this slot, students
freely play in classrooms.
-
9:30-10:30: indoor activities
inside classrooms
During this slot, students
take a second breakfast (Spanish almuerzo)
-
10:30-11:00: students go out
to the schoolyard
During this slot, playing
outdoors is encouraged and, occasionally, activities are directed that serve as
a complement for the children’s games.
-
11:00-12:00: indoor activities
inside classrooms
-
12:00: Some families pick up
their children for lunch at home. Students that remain at school take lunch
there and then enjoy some time to rest.
-
15:00: Some families bring
their children back to school (but not all families).
-
15:15-16:30: Directed and free
activities are combined.
-
16:30-17:00: Families pick up
their children from school.
This centre’s timetable led us
to implement the PlayPod before noon. It must be noted, though, that, except
for entrance and exit hours, this schedule has some degree of flexibility.
According to the educational team itself, it all depends on the development of
the proposed activities and on the levels of acceptance, concentration, and
distraction of the class.
2 – Methodology
During the preparation phase
of the implementation, the team defined various research questions to guide our
observations. These were rounded up with reflections proposed within discussion
groups that included the team of educators.
Prior to the implementation
meetings and interviews, both in group as well as individually with each
educator, were conducted and taken notes of. They were asked to fill a
questionnaire about their expectations regarding this project. Afterwards, a
discussion group was held to debate the expectations about the PlayPod
methodology. Photos were taken, both in class and at the schoolyard. About the
students photos and videos were taken and more specific data were collected in
a database (duration of games and its typology were taken into account, as well
as the age and gender of participants, and the role played by the educators).
During the implementation
hundreds of photos and dozens of videos were taken. The database continued to
be fed with data in order to further specify the observation of the PlayPod
implementation. It was agreed that educators had to take written notes every
time they observed any relevant fact. An open communication channel (namely,
email) was also established. Discussion group was usually held during group
meetings after lunch. Written notes of these discussion groups were taken.
After the implementation Educators
were observed again on a daily basis, especially with respect to the role they
played both in class as at the schoolyard. Notes were taken of these
observations. The educators were given a short questionnaire to answer as for
assessing the differences between their expectations and their final perception
about the project and a last group meeting was held as a wrap-up, in which
general observations were collected. About the students another set of graphic
material was taken as well as new databases specifying the types of games,
duration, and differences regarding gender and age.
3 – Building the Spanish PlayPod
The Encís cooperative
requested the opinion of the educators on the design of the device and was in
charge of actually setting it up. When the PlayPod was brought into La Lluna,
the size of it and its versatility were very much liked, but a negative aspect
that was mentioned was its lack of use of materials that integrated the PlayPod
more into the environment.
Regarding the objects
available inside the PlayPod, it was difficult for the department of Encís
in charge to collect the desired quantity of objects with optimum quality and
functionality, despite the good predisposition of local businesses. The
teaching team missed the variety and aesthetically-pleasing looks of the items
that they were shown from the catalogue of the British project. It was noted
that there was a great amount of objects (too many, as later became evident),
but there lacked many of the ones that were considered in advance as possible
items. In any case, potentially harmful materials were immediately discarded
(unpolished wood pieces, wood strips and PVC tubes). Teachers also found that
the material was not attractive and that there were many objects that were
absolutely against centre’s educational project.
4 – Description of the implementation
Even though the terminology may be
confuse, within the implementation of the PlayPod, the project stipulates an
observation process prior to the implementation. This phase is necessary in
order to recognize some critical aspects of the implementation beforehand;
without these observations, it would be very difficult to have a previous
framework of analysis. The third observation phase is done after retiring the
PlayPod in order to register possible experimented changes.
Prior to the implementation
In preschool education, the role of education
professionals is critical for the development of the students’ personality.
These professionals play the basic function of being affective role-models, as
well as establishing patterns of behaviour, behavioural rules and observing
that they are complied with. The team at La Lluna is capable of creating
a calm and peaceful environment in classrooms that helps them a lot for
performing their tasks. At the schoolyard they prefer to give students a
certain degree of freedom, only intervening in cases in which conflicts arise
or in which students themselves ask for it. They are conscious of the need that
students must burn their energies when playing outdoors and consider that
limiting it would be counterproductive for the development of the project in
their classrooms.
The expectations towards the
PlayPod project were quite high. These were represented in a diagram; only one
educator expressed being more sceptical about the work environment and other
pedagogical aspects. Regarding the increase of resources and materials, the
whole team expressed high expectations towards this project.
Students of this age evolve
from great emotional dependence towards greater autonomy. This can be observed
very clearly at their different development stages.
Younger ones constantly demand
for attention from the educators and almost do not interact at all with
materials outdoors.
1- and 2-year-old students
start to do many things by themselves and to take some decisions when playing,
but still need to increasingly develop more autonomy.
Older students (2-, 3-year-old)
already have total initiative in games and almost do not need any adult
intervention when any conflict arises. A difference in leadership roles can
also be observed regarding gender. While boys that are dominant are those who
have physically developed earlier, there are 2 or 3 cases of girls that are
absolute protagonist by means of persuasion and negotiation. Male leadership
usually changes when disputed in any more or less violent fashion, whereas
female leadership is reinforced even further when disputed. Leading girls in
the group are much more subtle and practically minded; even techniques of
elimination of conflict resolution consisting in avoiding the conflictive physical
space can be observed.
The educators expected that
the PlayPod offered something new to the students and the school, such as
counting on new resources and materials that motivated children to further
develop as a human being as well as contacts with businesses that could provide
support for this material.
During the implementation
The implementation process
took place between April and May 2016. On April 6th the children were shown the
different materials from the PlayPod. From this date on, observations were done
both by the technicians on different days and by the educators themselves on a
daily basis. This observation is documented with graphic materials (photos and
video) and on written notes. Information was collected using a form. It also
must be noted that bad weather forced us to delay the day for implementing the
PlayPod.
The first day of implementation children
had a look on the objects but did not start to play with them until an adult
asked them to. Lots of instances of symbolic play were observed; objects being
used for the purpose they were created for (office material, glasses, etc.). We
observe cooperative games, conflicts (the novelty led to many disputes over
scarce objects), experiments with sounds and textures, risk management. The
educators discarded various objects seen as dangerous (e.g. wood strips,
unpolished wood pieces, big plastic tubes, cans, …).
During the first days, notable
moments of conflict and dispute arose because of objects of which less units
were available. The
types of games that were most common were manipulative and sensorial ones among
younger students, and symbolic and cooperative games among older ones. For manipulative and
experimental games plastic elements (tubes, pipes, cones, …) and coffee cans
were mainly used. Students experimented with textures and sounds.
Various moments of heuristic
games were observed, in which students did small creations putting different
objects together.
Symbolic games with office materials (e.g. PC keyboards,
mobile phones, coffee machine, etc.) were mainly developed by P1 students. P3
students showed tendency towards cooperative games, using a great variety of
materials, from cardboard tubes, plastic tubes and glasses, fabric, nets,… They
took advantage of all of this to create more physical games, such as running in
groups carrying over things in team; as well as other more symbolic and
creative games, like representing a family assigning to each other a role in
it, building a train wagon, or a small house using different materials.
The educators consider that the students need to burn their
energies and they usually led them to do so by combining these games with the
usual material they already know. Students frequently asked to use their usual
toys (especially 1- to 2-year-old toddlers). It was observed a repetition in
games with similar materials to those that they usually make use of. In the
last days of the implementation, they were given access to their toys and it
was observed that they started interacting with both types of materials. The attention paid to the PlayPod material
decreased as days passed. During the last days of the implementation only the
most successful materials were left for them to use, but nevertheless students
discarded most part of it.
The first impressions of the educators registered that the
students did not interact with the materials if no adult invited them to do so.
The little attractiveness of this material was noted, as well as the presence
of potentially dangerous objects, and other objects that had to be thrown away
as they broke very soon (e.g. cardboard objects).
Following the premise of not giving any instructions to the
children, it was noted that the only ones that paid some attention to the
PlayPod were the older students, older toddlers (2- and 3-year-olds). A
positive change was observed in them: cooperative games increased among them.
1- and 2-year-old students, i.e. toddlers, still showed lack
of autonomy; this was not improved after the implementation of the PlayPod.
They interacted with the material in very isolated and specific ways, mainly by
symbolic, heuristic (which increases creativity), and sensorial games. In this group an increase of conflicts due to the use of
material and space occurred (mainly fixed material and spaces located at the
schoolyard that are not part of the PlayPod). Infants (0- to 1-year-olds) almost did not use any element
that they found strange. Their absolute lack of autonomy is evident.
In general, students interacted only with some elements,
discarding the rest of them; the educators felt an intense sensation of
disorder and precariousness because of this. From the first day on the
educators insisted in the difficulties that presented the PlayPod in order to
collect and classify the material to put it back into the PlayPod’s drawer. The
fact that abandoned objects lied scattered all around the schoolyard made it
difficult for them to burn energy. There lacked space. After the first days,
the decision was taken to limit the amount of material and offer the objects in
a more reasonable fashion.
Regarding risk management, the educators decided not to
allow fighting games, due to the lack of control children show at these ages.
It was decided that the main role of the teaching team was supervision,
contaminating students’ games as little as possible, except for specific
moments with specific groups of students, which required more attention and
guidance.
After the implementation
After the implementation stage finished, it was decided that
the PlayPod container was kept in its original location, though covered, to
observe the reaction of the children. None of them asked for the toys that they
had been using for one month.
The children automatically turned back to their usual
routine, not missing the objects of the PlayPod. They passed in front of it to
get to the small hut where their usual toys are kept. It was really interesting
that none of them asked for using those toys that had been their new toys for
one month. The only student that came closer to the container was a girl that
had a quick and furtive look from beneath the covering fabric. From that moment
on, the PlayPod became an ignored object in the schoolyard.
The educators are grateful for the finalization of the
project. They have not drawn many positive conclusions out of it. The only
noteworthy thing is the increase of their consciousness regarding the
perception of risks. They are more relaxed, more in control and it can be felt.
Now they request the removal of the PlayPod container so that that portion of
the schoolyard may be usable again.
Evaluation with the team of educators
At the beginning, when they went out to the schoolyard, the
children were not aware that there was new material. The adults went to the
container and only then the children came closer (to the educators, actually).
The children had been playing so far, but without taking into account the new
material (i.e. the material was irrelevant for them). The expectations were
high about the success, but the material maybe was not the most adequate (the
educators were looking for more natural material) neither was the presentation
of the material, which was not classified. Difficulties were found to guide
disorder before children had understood what order is. There were problems for
collecting the excessive amount of material, in order not to saturate the
children (half the material had to be retired). Some materials allowed for
cooperative games (nets) and experiments (plastic cups). Younger children had
to be told to play with the materials (contaminating the project). At the
beginning, they took the material they knew and sometimes conflicts arose,
contrary to what the PlayPod actually looks for. At their age they are not
prepared yet to create anything from certain types of materials, and they need
lots of interactions with adults.
It all depends on the patience that each child has for
investigating. This is not due to the PlayPod itself, but each child’s
personality. The older students liked the PlayPod, but younger ones (P1) felt
alienated and asked for the usual material. This is material that is designed
for schoolyards that lack of any materials, and in this infant school there is
plenty of them. The result is, therefore, a sum of different factors.
Regarding the perception of risk, some objects had to be
retired, like wood strips that broke down and were dangerous, but no other
incidents were considered worth of notice. Regarding mutual respect among
students, no change was observed with respect to the usual educational program
of the centre. Some materials (tubes) led to fighting games that students never
did before (e.g. simulating shootings using cones). These are behaviours that
are common at some ages, that are conveyed through the material, but absolutely
natural. The material was not diverse enough, felt old, broke repeatedly, felt
like waste, and all of this made children not appreciate it. It would have been
a great moment to arise awareness about the material, but it was not possible.
Less but better material would have been much better, as well as improving the
materials network.
It did not improve the centre’s project. In fact, it went
against it with respect to ethics and aesthetics. Some factors, such as
tidiness at the schoolyard and encouraging this space for free play and
students’ leisure, negatively affected the teachers’ perception and evaluation
of the PlayPod implementation.
They would adapt the PlayPod (especially its materials), but
they would not continue implementing is the way that is has been. They neither
recommend it in similar locations without further redesign of the materials,
even though they do recommend it in other environments.
4 – Conclusion from the Spanish implementation
The PlayPod in Catalonia has been implemented on a preschool
population that is different to the ones on which PlayPods were implemented in
Britain and in France. In these two countries (the UK and France), the PlayPod
was implemented at primary schools, whereas in the case of Catalonia, the
implementation was done at an infant school. Therefore, we have to emphasize
that this project has been performed over a younger population (1- and
2-year-olds), which has its own specific needs and lacks autonomy. An important
factor must also be taken into account: the height of the children (they are
not tall enough). This may seem a trivial point, but we consider that it must
be taken into account, as it limits the use of objects of the PlayPod, as we
explain below.
The implementation in the Catalan context was also different
regarding the educators team. In the British case, the PlayPod is “opened”
during lunch time; this is done by staff that is not part of the educators team
and the existing regulations do not specify any special positions for these
types of tasks; this has prevented professionalizing the role of people who
watch over these spaces. In the French case, the PlayPod was implemented in two
different settings: at lunch time in a school, under the supervision of
non-teaching staff (yet formally part of the school) and in a leisure centre
during school holidays. In consequence, regarding the educational team, both in
the British and in the French case, the adults that stayed with the children
during this play time slot at noon were staff that regularly stays with them
for lunch and, therefore, lack any specific training. In those cases, a
training course were given to them prior to the PlayPod implementation that
focused on the children’s concept of playing, the relationship between
accompanying and listening, the benefits of educational risk, etc. In the
Catalan case, the professional team that applied the implementation was the
same that is present during educational hours: a professional team trained and
graduated in Preschool Education, so this training was not necessary at all.
Therefore, other aspects were worked upon. The content of the syllabi of the
different training courses was adapted to the specific needs of the Spanish
team, due to the context and professionalization degree of the educators team.
This training was deemed by the educators team as an opportunity for reflection
and knowledge deepening.
We also have to remind ourselves of the importance of
playing within the Catalan pedagogical context. For many years there exists a
high consciousness towards recycling and material reuse in all educational
contexts (both formal and informal). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that
in many educational centre, as is the case of infant schools managed by Encís,
non-specific materials are used, as well as recycled, natural and daily
materials, etc. A live, active pedagogy is developed, where the students are
protagonists of their own learning.
We want to stress out the following aspects observed from
the implementation at La Lluna regarding how “usual practices” of children and
teachers were transformed.
Children’s practices
Given the fact that the schoolyard of this infant school is
very rich in objects, the transformation of the space in this case was not that
strong. The children occupied only one third of the outdoor space, surrounding
the PlayPod. This space occupation factor may be influenced by the number of
children.
Conditioned by the ages of the children, the first
approximation to the PlayPod was done in a very progressive way. On the
following days, once they acknowledge the novelty, the access to it became
faster. Children of these ages first explore what they want to possess, so
there did not race to seize the objects. Exchange and systematic hoarding were
not observed either. No “artificial scarcity” of objects was either perceived
due to the number of children and objects.
The development of object exploration (“affordance”) arose
with the majority of PlayPod objects. The children emulated elements related to
music (blowing cones, drumming on cylindrical buckets, etc.). The use of
different objects for one single purpose was done at a very basic level,
though.
It was also observed how different situations of symbolic
playing arose, especially with electronic devices (telephones, keyboards, mice,
etc.). The collective dimension of playing that is associated to this
development stage was not observed, though.
We would also like to emphasize that, due to the ages of
participants, no feedback could be gathered from them regarding their
experience with the PlayPod.
Professionals’ practices:
It must be noted from the evaluation of the feedback of the
PlayPod implementation at La Lluna that the Encís team emphasizes that this
project has encouraged and helped developing discussion on:
Materials that are the team of the educational centre uses
to develop the curriculum.
The question on opportunities of “affordances” that these
materials offer.
The limits that these materials are worked with.
Risks accepted as educational and how the teaching team
develops and takes positions regarding these risks.
How to plan educational proposals with respect to materials,
their typology, their aesthetics, etc.
How is educational accompaniment done and what is the role
of the teacher.
In other aspects, it is important to underline the positive
evaluation of having encouraged a collaborative project at the school not just
with children’s families, but also involving the whole community around the
school: public administration, associations, industries, businesses, etc. With
the PlayPod implementation, the educational community was broadened from the
community itself. Moreover, it raised the awareness towards different social
agents of this environment by encouraging the use of recycled materials, giving
a second use to them and transforming its initial use. It has engaged a circle
of influence and learning: preschoolers-families-community-preschoolers.
Despite the differences, as we have explained here, of the
PlayPod implementation in the Catalan context, we emphasize the pedagogical and
educational experience in infant schools as the main contribution to the global
project. This population and its associated educational space were never worked
with at the PlayPod project.
The most relevant aspect regarding the context which this
implementation worked with is the importance of spaces and materials as parts
of an educational intention. “Schools must provide a rich environment such that
entering into them is already an educational act itself” (Tonucci). These
spaces for 0- to 3-year-olds must be:
Flexible, adapted for the uses and functions children give
them, prioritizing to their motivations and needs. This is the reason why it is
better in an environment for children of these ages to work with less
materials, more variety in types of materials (variety of objects, textures,
etc.), and more variety in locations.
Attractive: Materials, as well as spaces, must be
attractive, as they must encourage exploration, experimentation, action,
observation, relating, etc. This is why we suggest working from proposals,
making materials available in provocative ways in order to observe the
children’s reactions.
“Order” inspiring: Both spaces and materials must inspire a
certain degree of harmony. Playing (learning) in a harmonious environment makes
it easier for the children to develop their actions and helps everything to
flow. Under these assumptions, order and aesthetics are close to this required
harmony. At this educational stage, it is important to “care” for the
materials.
Diversity: Spaces and materials must be diverse enough to
satisfy the needs of the curriculum as well as the motivations and interests of
the students. This factor makes it possible to build a way of playing that is
free, experimentation-based, that allows relating ideas with each other and
developing plots, etc. It must be noted that the PlayPod adaptation was limited
in diversity for this context: the materials were not suited for children of
these ages and height. Additionally, the PlayPod could not be provided with
diversity of textures and types of materials (wood, metal, fabric, thread,
paper, cardboard, etc.).
The role of the educator must be based on making easy to
freely use materials and games, by influencing their disposition when inviting
the children to interact with them (provoking them with the materials). This
role model figure must stay with the children without intervening, mediating,
or anticipating their action, thus allowing the children to ask themselves
questions, make observations of their own, establish relationships between
ideas, hypothesize, engage in conversations, etc. In this context it is
important that the role model plays along by asking open questions and putting
words on whatever that is happening.
Despite of us observing a very reduced sample (compared to
other settings), it has been observed that not all children played with the
proposed objects. At the recess many of them had the need to play in more
physical ways: run, jump, etc. In many occasions, the children also asked to
use the objects usual to their environment, especially those equipped with
wheels: bikes, tricycles, etc. In such a context is very difficult to offer
different, simultaneous activities.
5. General conclusion
Even the two research in France and in Spain are different
in the methods, in the concept and theory used and in the setting of
implementation, we can propose some shared conclusion. The PlayPod and its implementation in the two countries is a
tool for the reflexion about play, the space to develop play, play and leisure,
play and education. The two researches show this. But it is more a situation to
reflect about play and objects. What is a plaything? How an object can become a
plaything for the children. In the different sites we can see also the importance
of the box, the pod which is more than a container. It is a tool for the play
and its architecture is essential. It is also part of the play, a kind of
plaything.
The PlayPod offers play situations and a lot are similar in
the different sites and countries: the importance of loose parts and objects
for assembling, construction, interpretation (or symbolic play). We can
underline the importance of cooperation.
The researches show the importance of the position of the
adults (educators, teachers, organisers). How the adult can help the children
in his or her play without organising directly the play? How we can transfer
the playwork philosophy in different situations? How they manage the question
of risk (knowing it is not the same before 3 years old)?
Except in one case (the primary school in Paris) we observe
the implementation of PlayPod in situations which differ from the original
concept. This need a work of adaptation after the experiment (we give some
perspectives but there is still a work
to find the good solutions).
The question of localization is central: even there is
something very strong in the concept, it needs adaptation: cultural adaptation
in connexion with the country and functional adaption in connexion with the
institution and the age of children. It is important that there is an appropriation
of the concept by a team, that’s means a transformation of the team and the
concept.
Bibliography
Armitage, M. (2009). Play Pods in Schools. An independent
evaluation (2006-2009) Project 43. Playpeople – taking play seriously
Playground and Play Service Development, Education, Training & Research.
http://www.yapaka.be/sites/yapaka.be/files/page/rapport_independant_mene_en_angleterre.pdf
Bachelart D. (2012) S’encabaner : art constructeur et
fonctions de la cabane selon les âges…, Revue d’éducation relative à
l’environnement, Regards, Recherches Réflexions, Volume 10, pp. 35-61.
Brougère G. (2003) Jouets et compagnie, Paris, Stock.
Brougère G. (2005) Jouer/Apprendre, Paris, Economica.
Brougère G. (2016a) Y a-t-il quelque chose de commun entre
jeu loisir et jeu éducatif ? Diversité, n°183, pp. 146150.
Brougère G. (2016b) « De l’apprentissage diffus ou
informel à l’éducation diffuse ou informelle », Le Télémaque, n°49, pp.
51-64.
Clark, A & Moss P. (2001) Listening to Young
Children : The Mosaic Approach, London, NCB
Delalande J. (2001) La cour de récréation, contribution à
une anthropologie de l’enfance, Rennes, PUR.
Garnier P. (2015) Une ville pour les enfants : entre
ségrégation, réappropriation et participation, Métropolitiques, http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Une-ville-pour-les-enfants-entre.html
Layder D. (2006) Understanding Social Theory, London, Sage.
Roucous N. (2007) « Les loisirs de l’enfant ou le défi
de l’éducation informelle », Revue française de pédagogie n°160 [Online]
http://rfp.revues.org/731.
No comments:
Post a Comment