What Makes a Game Great for Children?

by Rae Pica

 

 

 

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.”

           

That seems simple enough.  Yet, 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.  Children who’ll engage in the most atrocious behaviors to ensure they’re not the ones eliminated from a round of Musical Chairs.

           

Go to a website of game ideas 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 their kids’ birthday parties and playdates without a second thought as to what the game may be teaching, or the inappropriateness of eliminating and/or humiliating children.  They themselves participated in these games as kids and 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?  Since 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 our games, just as we select the other parts of the curriculum, based on whether or not they’re developmentally appropriate?  

           

Bredekamp and Copple (1997) tell us that development in one domain impacts development in the others.  They further state: “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.” 

 

Staley and Portman (2000) suggest we choose games not only because they pass the time on a rainy day, but 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 & Portman, 2000, p. 67).

 

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.”  Dr. Williams is the creator of The Physical Education Hall of Shame, a list of childhood games he considers inappropriate for PE classes.  Currently included on his list are:

·         Dodgeball

·         Duck, Duck, Goose

·         Messy Backyard

·         Kickball

·         Musical Chairs

·         Relay Races

·         Steal the Bacon

·         Line Soccer

·         Red Rover

·         Simon Says

·         Spud

·         Tag

           

Among his criteria for inclusion of these games are the following:

·         Absence of the purported objectives of the activity or game.

·         Potential to embarrass a student in front of the rest of the class.

·         Focus on eliminating students from participation.

·         Extremely low participation time.

·         Extremely high likelihood for danger, injury, and harm. (Williams, 1994)

 

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, miserable, against a wall.

 

References:

 

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.) (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in

   early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

   Young Children.

 

Staley, L., & Portman, P.A. (2000). Red Rover, Red Rover, It’s Time to Move Over!

   Young Children, 55(1), 67-72.

 

Williams, N.F. (1994). The Physical Education Hall of Shame, Part II. Journal of

   Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(2), 17-20.

 

This article is adapted from the introduction to Great Games for Young Children (Gryphon House, 2006) by Rae Pica.