by Terry Heick
We’ve talked before about the role of play in learning, and this is an idea that I’m becoming fascinated with. It’s also a bit of a tough nut to crack.
What exactly is play? (A wonderful video gives an answer here.)
Can you make it happen, or must you let it happen?
What is the relationship between play and “flow”?
And what does this all mean for formal and informal learning environments? Well, that depends on whether you see the role of play and self-direction in learning as necessary, or a waste of efficiency.
1. Given nothing
The student little receives zero resources or support.
2. Given time
In this learning model, a student is merely restricted by some sort of time constraint.
3. Given playful spaces
Here, the student is “placed” in a “playful space”–whether physical or digital. Beyond that immediate context, they are given nothing else.
4. Given opportunity for collaboration
Students are merely given the opportunity to collaborate, perhaps in a playful space. Again, no other support or “framing” is offered.
5. Given dynamic tools
Students are now given dynamic tools to place within playful spaces with the opportunity for collaboration. No “content” is delivered.
6. Given a topic
At this level, students are given all of the above (well, except #1), but also offered a topic: gravity, variables, symbolism, war, hip-hop, etc. No further criteria or suggestion is offered.
7. Given engaging models
Now, students have added in their “learning space” engaging exemplars of human thought: paintings, apps, novels, architecture, music, examples of math-as-problem-solving-tool, etc.
8. Given a challenge or goal
Solve this problem. Make 10 shots in a row. Find a more efficient way to package an item. This sort of “goal” or challenge should be relatively minor or it could quickly become a full blown project.
9. Given a process or framework
At this point, the learning process becomes significantly more restricted. Students are given a process, sequence, framework, or some other external method that acts as both “support” and a detriment to their own natural self-direction.
10. Mandating collaboration with little choice
Added to the above externally-planned sequence, learners are now required to collaborate, with little choice with whom, for what purpose, and at what stage of the learning and/or production/design process.
11. Given specific criteria
In addition to deciding the space, topic, models, challenges, and collaboration, the teacher (or expert) now also adds specific criteria to the assignment, whether this is basic (a due-date), moderate (number of resources required), or more complex (specific criteria of a specific model to be produced by the learner).
12. Given a flexible rubric
The teacher helps guide the learner in understanding what might determine the “quality” of an assignment. This can be both supportive or restrictive, depending on how it’s done.
13. Given an assignment
The teacher has taken the task of deciding content, form, and criteria to create and/or distribute an “assignment” which is hoped to lead to a specific understanding. The level of support/restriction is becoming significant.
14. Given a detailed project with detailed rubric
The students here may have the flexibility of a project, but everything else is dictated and externally-directed.
15. Given fully scripted assignments packaged as a “unit”
This is among the most restrictive approaches to learning. Depending on your perspective, this is either expertly-planned by a trained teacher to produce creative and critical thinking learners that can self-direct their own learning pathways. or it is stifling to those same areas, eroding learner self-direction, innovation, play, and, further, educator capacity.
Both flow and play require a strong sense of volition and intellectual safety on the part of users. Self-directed learning, project-based learning, mobile learning, and other 21st century learning forms all rely heavily on the states of mind.
It also seems that play precedes flow to some extent–and since each are untapped resources of imagination, creativity, and innovation, it makes sense that we understand where they come from and how they work.
In pursuit, I put together the above draft of a play “spectrum” to give an idea of what it looks like compared to traditional learning. It moves from less to more restrictive left to right, where learners are given “nothing” in a completely unrestricted environment–literally nothing–and given specific assignments with detailed rubrics in a more restrictive environment.
In the middle is a kind of sweet spot, where learners are simply given dynamic tools, opportunity for collaboration, and the ability to work and produce free from critical judgment. Other components are also available, from engaging models and peer-to-peer collaboration, to browsing tools and available audiences.
The end result would be a learning environment where learners are empowered to experiment, interact, solve problems, fail, share, iterate, and self-direct. The spectrum above essentially creates a range of conditions that are more or less likely to create play through learning–and learning through play.
Arranged vertically from less restrictive to more, it’d look something like this:
Flow & Play
Flow and play are similar. Flow is something that can happen when play and achievement resonate, something this site describes:
Notice how the interplay between how challenging an activity is and your skill level in that activity can make you feel as follows:
- Apathy (low challenge, low skills)
- Boredom (low challenge, mediocre skills)
- Relaxation (low challenge, high skills)
- That you’re in control (somewhat challenging, high skills)
- Worry (somewhat challenging, low skills)
- Anxiety (challenging, low skills)
- Arousal (very challenging, mediocre skills).
If you’re in the “arousal” state you can move into “flow” by developing more skills. On the other hand, if you’re in control you can enter “flow” by making the task more challenging.
Image attribution flickr user flickeringbrad