Great Games for Young Children: 

Over 100 Games to Develop Self-Confidence, Problem-Solving Skills, and Cooperation

 

 

Introduction

 

Something Played for Fun

 

As I was setting up for a staff development workshop one night, I overheard one teacher tell another about a little girl who'd had a terrible crying jag over being eliminated from a game of Simon Says.  The second teacher clucked in sympathy and the conversation moved on from there.  there was no discussion of the fact that perhaps the game should be modified in the future so it didn't make children feel bad -- that the intention of a game is to have fun.

 

You've witnessed it yourself, I'm sure: Children chosen last for teams; children sitting against the wall, watching forlornly as their classmates continue to play Hot Potato without them; and children who engage in the most atrocious behaviors to ensure they're not the ones eliminated from a game of Musical Chairs.

 

What constitutes a game?  It's a word that's almost as difficult to define as the word play, which is what we do with games.  According to Merriam-Webster Online, a game is an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement."  The Encarta Dictionary calls it "something played for fun."

 

Go to a website for parents and you'll find descriptions of these activities and others like them.  Parents make note of them and arrange for them to be played at birthday parties and play dates without a second thought as to the inappropriateness of eliminating and/or humiliating children.  they themselves participated in these games when they were children, and they see no reason not to perpetuate the tradition.

 

As early childhood professionals, however, don't we have a responsibility to do more than perpetuate traditions?  Because we've been entrusted with the education of the whole child, shouldn't we regard the activities we present in light of what they offer children in all domains of development -- cognitively, socially, emotionally, and physically?  Shouldn't we select games, just as we select the other parts of the curriculum, based on whether they are developmentally appropriate?

 

The Hall of Shame

 

Brededamp and Copple (1997, p. 10) note that development in one domain impacts development in the others.  They explain, "Because developmental domains are interrelated, educators should be aware of and use these interrelationships to organize children's learning experiences in ways that help children develop optimally in all areas and that make meaningful connections across domains."

 

As teachers, we should choose games not only because they give children something to do, but also because they have something to teach.  We may not initially think of games in terms of learning for children -- perhaps, more often, as a break from learning -- but children learn from all their experiences.  It's up to us to decide what we'd like them to learn from the games we play with them: things like self-confidence, problem solving, cooperation, trust, and motor skills, or "rejection, competition, failure, and humiliation" (Staley and Portman, 2000, p. 67).

 

Dr. Neil Williams is the creator of The Physical Education Hall of Shame, a list of childhood games he considers inappropriate for physical education (PE) classes.  Games that make this list share some of the following problems:

 

Williams (1994, p. 17) states: "As professionals, we must reexamine our practices and programs and think critically about what, how, and why we are teaching the children in our care."  Currently, the Hall of Shame includes:

 

According to Bredekamp and Copple (1997, p.14), "Play provides a context for children to practice newly acquired skills and also to function on the edge of their developing capacities to take on new social roles, attempt novel or challenging tasks, and solve complex problems that they would not (or could not) otherwise do."  None of that is likely to happen while a child is battling (literally) to stay in the game or sitting miserably against a wall.

 

About This Book

 

Obviously, some games have more to offer children in one domain that in another.  That's okay.  But at the very least, we should remember the primary definition of a game and ensure that is' fun -- for everyone.  With all the stress in children's lives today, fun is perhaps the best reason to play games.

 

The games I've chosen or invented for this book provide benefits for the whole child.  This means that if a game doesn't have something to offer in all three domains of child development, I didn't include it here.  Some of my choices, like Statues, were already developmentally appropriate.  Others needed a bit of tweaking to make them so.  Still others, like Hot Potato and Musical Chairs (cited earlier), needed a serious overhaul before I could include them here.

 

Many of the games in this book involve group participation.  Some require partners to work together.  And some, like Hopscotch, involve one child taking a turn while others wait for theirs.  In these cases, I've included suggestions to reduce waiting time.  it's true that children must learn to wait their turn; it's a necessary social skill.  However, waiting does not come naturally to young children and shouldn't be imposed on them too often.  Besides, a child who is waiting is not physically participating and, therefore, not reaping all possible benefits!

 

I'm a big believer in all that play has to provide children, and I worry that, in this age of "academics" and "accountability," children are getting fewer and fewer opportunities to play.  To help ensure play continues to be part of the early childhood curriculum, I've included a list of benefits in all three domains with each game.  My hope is that the more rationale we have for children playing, the more we can fight against inappropriate practices -- and the more we can help parents, administrators, and policy makers understand that play is what's best for the children!