Discourse Analysis

Discourse Analysis 1

Greta Spies, et al. "The risk is that there is 'no risk': a simple, innovative intervention to increase children's activity levels." International Journal of Early Years Education 17.1 (2009): 33-45. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Feb. 2011 http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=105&sid=877c8e70-a148-4cfc-9301-3d4d99a5eaa3%40sessionmgr112&vid=7

This is an academic paper detailing a study done in Australia involving “loose materials” being introduced onto the playground. Having been conducted and analyzed in 2009 it is the most recent study done in “adventure playground” research that I could find. It addresses multiple aspects of playtime that I am researching for this service learning project, most importantly safety excess. The author clearly itemized the layout of the study citing the process of selection and consent from participants while also recognizing, and mitigating, areas where inaccuracy in the results would occur. The overall purpose was to measure the effect on play random “loose materials” would have on primary schoolchildren in terms of physical activity and social behavior, and to measure the effect these materials would have on the adult supervisors in terms of risk perception, labeled as ‘real’ or ‘imagined’.

The entire article has an overtone of ‘positiveness,’ as though the results were expected and served only to reinforce the authors own point of view. Given how the study turned out, I believe that the assumptions are justified, smug though they sound. The author was very careful to keep these assumptions within the realm of reason, an excellent idea as a portion of the paper feels like more of a call to action than a report. Having the tone of reason allows readers to identify and believe what is being said and be more inclined to side with the papers conclusions from quantitative and qualitative data analysis.

The quantitative analysis from the study was measured by devices that recorded changes in movement as well as interviews and observations from participants. The results support the idea that introducing “loose materials,” and thereby increasing the amount of “managed risk” in playgrounds, has a net effect of increasing the activity level in children along with the leadership, fairness, and communication skills involved with playtime. There is also evidence of side effects including a reduction in the rate of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and childhood aggression due to the increased activity level. I stand in support of the findings from my own personal experience, though the article seems to draw firmer conclusions on the effects than I believe are warranted.

The qualitative analysis, interviews with the teachers involved, yielded interesting results which reflects, I think, on the culture of “child worship” (George Carlin) where the safety of the child is more important than the development of the child. Teachers felt there was more risk involved with the materials even with numerous restrictions on the use of them. The study documented no difference in the frequency or severity of injury while playing, though some teachers commented there was less complaining about falls and scratches. This suggests that the different play is perceived as more dangerous simply because it is different, not because it actually is more dangerous. The most interesting statement from the article was how (paraphrasing) limiting risk on the playground actually increased the child’s chances for injury. The lack of opportunity for risk assessment or firsthand experience of the laws of physics from overly safe playing equipment denies the development of necessary skills in children. It is most unfortunate that this opportunity is lost at a point in time when the consequences are so light and the learning potential so great. I believe this to be the telling point. Adults have become so fearful of litigation that they seek to remove all risk (and thus, all fun) from playtime as a measure to safeguard themselves from harm rather than the children.

Unfortunately this study has flaws inherent in its design, not in the application or its adherence to the scientific process, but in the foundations. The greatest of these is the research location: Australia. While most of the lessons are universal for our similar cultures, the application in our society would be much more difficult as Americans distrust studies done on "other" children as inaccurate, and are much more territorial about their (our) children. We attempt to reduce risk from all aspects of child activities with the inclusion of mandatory safety equipment. The major problem with our motives is not the result, after all who wants to see children hurt? It is our intent; we seek to reduce risk so as to avoid lawsuits and litigation. I would like to see how this study could be implemented in America. There are several adventure parks already in operation; however my research has shown none of these are part of any federally funded primary school. As primary education is paramount to a child’s academic learning, playtime is paramount to a child’s ability to adapt in society. The skills learned from free form play are just as important, if not more so, than academics. Without the social skills of sharing, fairness, leadership and communication that are learned on the playground, children have no framework with which to apply their knowledge. These skills are slowly being traded for safety when we should be increasing the amount of managed risk to more strongly facilitate their development.