I chanced upon an article about play in Scientific American Magazine. Play - or more specifically what cognitive scientists call "free play" - is what we've been spending a great deal of time doing in our rehearsals. This free play is critical to becoming socially adept, coping with stress, and with cognitive skills such as problem solving. The author of the article Melinda Wenner makes distinction between structured games and "free play:"But kids play soccer, Scrabble and the sousaphone—so why are experts concerned that these games and more structured activities are eating into free play? Certainly games with rules are fun and sources of learning experiences—they may foster better social skills and group cohesion, for instance, says Anthony D. Pellegrini, an educational psychologist at the University of Minnesota. But, Pellegrini explains, “games have a priori rules—set up in advance and followed. Play, on the other hand, does not have a priori rules, so it affords more creative responses.” This creative aspect is key because it challenges the developing brain more than following predetermined rules does. In free play, kids use their imagination and try out new activities and roles.
In the article, how is play defined?:
Gordon M. Burghardt, author of The Genesis of Animal Play, spent 18 years observing animals to learn how to define play: it must be repetitive—an animal that nudges a new object just once is not playing with it—and it must be voluntary and initiated in a relaxed setting. Animals and children do not play when they are undernourished or in stressful situations. Most essential, the activity should not have an obvious function in the context in which it is observed - meaning that it has, essentially no clear goal. [emboldened text is my doing and not in the original article.]
I think our improvisations have fit this description of play. It will be interesting to see if we can maintain our playfulness as we begin to "set" our improvisations into a form that is repeatable.
It's also interesting how we've been flirting with and playing with the idea of applying priori rules - through our experimentation with the water ritual - to all of this free play. I wonder if that is why the rules we name and codify after we do this water ritual don't easily carry over from week to week.
I think the article certainly supports your theory, Ms Roth, that improvisation - a kind of free play - builds community. And, as the article suggests, this need to play is "hard-wired" in the human organism.
In the article, how is play defined?:
Gordon M. Burghardt, author of The Genesis of Animal Play, spent 18 years observing animals to learn how to define play: it must be repetitive—an animal that nudges a new object just once is not playing with it—and it must be voluntary and initiated in a relaxed setting. Animals and children do not play when they are undernourished or in stressful situations. Most essential, the activity should not have an obvious function in the context in which it is observed - meaning that it has, essentially no clear goal. [emboldened text is my doing and not in the original article.]
I think our improvisations have fit this description of play. It will be interesting to see if we can maintain our playfulness as we begin to "set" our improvisations into a form that is repeatable.
It's also interesting how we've been flirting with and playing with the idea of applying priori rules - through our experimentation with the water ritual - to all of this free play. I wonder if that is why the rules we name and codify after we do this water ritual don't easily carry over from week to week.
I think the article certainly supports your theory, Ms Roth, that improvisation - a kind of free play - builds community. And, as the article suggests, this need to play is "hard-wired" in the human organism.
No comments:
Post a Comment