Shell, Ellen Ruppel. "Kids Don't Need Equipment, They Need Opportunity." Smithsonian Magazine, July 1994. Reprinted by permission of the Smithsonian and Ellen Ruppel Shell. Web 6 February 2011. http://www.pps.org/articles/kids_smithsonian/
Ms. Shell addresses an important subject in child development: playtime and the environment that induces playtime: the playground. She contends that structured playground equipment and specially designed features are obsolete and ineffective. Unfortunately, since adults are in charge of building playgrounds, they design with prefabricated structures which is exactly what children don't need. She points out through her research that children need interactive environments, places where they can alter the terrain, get dirty and create their own world. This is where playtime truly becomes developmental for children. The current playground, with its rigid design and static edifices, reveals a place that isn't interesting to a child. The new playground design is more landscaping than construction, with bare patches of dirt, gardens, and natural features that engage a young mind.
This article seems to be advocating strongly for a revision of the design of playgrounds. Not only for creating a more effective and fun place for children's playtime, but an overall idea which requires community involvement and demands social interaction. She says that the current mentality of static and prefabricated features being more or less a one size fits all solution is wrong and a waste of valuable resources by both designers and administrators. A more modern design to a playground incorporates the things children actually find interesting or amusing, basic tools which they can combine themselves in unique ways. Things like sticks, stumps, sand, mud and rocks are the basic tools which comprise the new playground design. Some of the experts she interviewed showed how interactive, and very basic, designs, are far better for children to learn social skills and community interaction than a premade designs such as swing sets and slides.
"Most people who care about child development know nothing about design, and most people who design know nothing about child development." -Roger Hart, Director of Children's Environments Research group, City University of New York Graduate Center.
As a grown child myself I can still remember how boring some of the playgrounds were. I would not even play on some of the equipment in favor of a tall pine tree nearby, or an open field, or the sidewalk where I made a jump into the park. The idea that if we build structures in a certain way and arrange them just so, that children will automatically have fun without wanting to change the environment, is ludicrous. Anyone who has children knows that they have an innate desire to interact and alter their immediate environment, creating a new world or an imaginary one given the right arrangement. An effective design using prefabricated structures, known as "continuous play loops", utilizes this arrangement. The collective, and somewhat creative, organization of structures allows for imagination to take hold and for playtime to occur. Where I differ from their ideas is in the implementation. Requiring adult supervision is a good idea, however in our overprotective society I can only see this leading to a lot of adults censoring the playtime. What adults don't realize is that kids seek out risk as a part of fun, playtime is spontaneous and a little scary. If implemented in America, lawsuits would abound.
The article is thorough and makes an excellent case for why playgrounds need to be designed in a new way, however it doesn't touch on how this should be done. I would like to know if there is a plan to implement them, after all this article was written over 15 years ago and I have yet to see an adventure playground built. Is there a way to update current, ineffective playgrounds to reflect the newer approach? Where are good places for these playgrounds to be made? What are the criteria needed?
Hi Jason:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the solid source you found, and it seems appropriate for the stage of exploratory (background) research that you're in. The ideas underlying the design of playgrounds has a good bit of relevance, considering how the Discovery Center lays out its' exhibits. It's my assumption that you chose this article because it will help you consider the layout of the DC's exhibits and how children interact with them? This is potentially interesting work.
I'm wondering, if this is a topic area (design and development?) that you're interested in, if your source references other authors that might be helpful for you? Looking at your sources references can be an excellent way to expand your research.
Keep up the good work!
I am in the process of reviewing this post...Ill have the response done in a little while!
ReplyDelete1.) MLA Citation: GOOD! You correctly cited your information and provided a hyperlink to your source. No improvements necessary.
ReplyDelete2.) These next critiques are for the prompt you answered to…
Prompt 2: you start off strong in the opening sentence and continue throughout the paragraph; you answered the prompt correctly in a concise way. However, in the sentence using “prefabricated structures”…change “which is” to are, and “don’t” to do not. In formal writing try to stay away from conjunctions; write out I am for I’m, cannot for can’t etc. Besides those two minute errors this is a pretty darn good looking paragraph. Much better than last week!
Prompt 3: From reading your response, it seems you have a good understanding of your source and what the author is trying to “get” at. The author has a good intent to benefit children and you emphasize and back Ms. Shell up. The only thing that could use improvement in this paragraph is the last sentence, perhaps restructure it to make it more clear: “interactive, and very basic, designs,” could be stated a different way or perhaps you inserted an extra comma between basic and designs. Personally I think this part sound better stated “very basic and interactive designs, are far better for children...”
And for the quote randomly hanging between prompt 3 and 4…find way to embed your quote, this should not be lingering in the open, try to use this in the above paragraph. And for citations this long there is a specific way to do it, not simple in quotes, in the middle of a paragraph. See me or view the MLA handbook in how to do this.
Prompt 4: Good reflection on your source and strong paragraph; great personal story. However, I don’t know if I would end your paragraph in a negative way because you were so positive before…end with the positive else people reading it are going to negate everything previously stated; if you are for it, be for it, if not, then tell why not and leave the reader with that impression. Try to stay organized in your writing.
Prompt 5: Followed requirements on unit sheet however, try to more in depth questions. Try to think outside the box and come up with questions the reader would not form simply by reading your source introduction.
Overall this bibliography was pretty solid, good work! Seems like you put more time and effort into this post, keep it up!
3.) While it may be hard to implement quotations or create an argument against playground equipment improvements, try to use more than one major quote. The quote that you do use, as stated before, is lingering and has no context that introduces the quotation. You always want to introduce what your source is trying to say, making it relevant to what you are saying in your words. Also because this is a big ass quote containing 3 or more lines, there is a specific way to cite that. Try to use relevant quotes to back up what you are saying or to argue what Ms. Shell is saying to raise questions.