March 2009
Play and the Plug
A briefing and position statement from Play Wales
Computer games have become an
important part of the culture of many
children and young people in the UK,
yet there is little certainty within the
play sector as to their relationship
to play and play theory, their value
within play provision, or their relation
to the Playwork Principles. Some play
providers make an almost instinctive
decision not to provide computer
games, while we have heard of others
who use them to attract children and
young people to use their setting.
There are wider conflicting views
on the effects and use of computer
games on children and young people’s
behaviour, development and their
play, that may influence decisions
made within the play sector.
The aim of this paper is to set out Play Wales’
position on the use of computer games within
play settings, and to provide playworkers, play
providers and others interested with a review
of a range of recent research and arguments
so that informed decisions can be made.
We define computer games as those that must
be played on a computer, hand held device or
a screen.
The speed at which new games and devices,
and new uses for, say, mobile phones, are
introduced, the range of games available, and
the rapidly changing demographic of computer
games users, has made writing this paper
a complex task. We have therefore chosen
not to include research into the use of social
networking sites because they are less likely
to be used within play provision. In order to
support our position statement and to ensure
that we are taking into account the views of
play providers, we have conducted a survey
of children and young people living in Wales
(Appendix 1: survey, Appendix 2: results,
Appendix 3: survey recipients) and sought
the opinion of 40 play development officers in
Wales as well as a specialist in inclusive play.
‘I like playing on computer games,
but I also like to play outside with my
friends.’
One day Wales will be a place
where we recognise and provide
for every child’s play needs
1
Background
The first televisions became commercially
available in Britain during the 1930’s – though
few households could afford them. As families
became more affluent after the Second World
War, TV ownership became more common.
Colour television was introduced in the UK
in 1967. Today the television is no longer
considered a household luxury – for many it is
seen as a necessity and every socio economic
group has access – those who do not own a
TV are commonly seen as eccentric and many
households own several.
The first programmable computer was created
in 1936. The earliest available commercial
personal computers (microcomputers)
were sold in kit form for technicians and
hobbyists. In the 1970’s, due to the invention
of microchips and microprocessors, factory
production costs began to drop, computers
became more readily available and home
usage began to rise.
In January to April 2006, 56 per cent of
households in Great Britain had a desktop
computer, 30 per cent had a portable or laptop
computer, and 7 per cent had a handheld
computer. (Office of National Statistics)
Rudimentary computer games existed from
the 1950’s and the first electronic arcade
games and commercial home video games
consoles were created in the 1970’s. Many
older people remember screen tennis or Space
Invaders with affection as their first encounter
with an electronic game. With the invention
of microchip technology, this decade saw
significant advances and electronic devices
were made more efficient and powerful. The
microchip and microprocessors led to more
and more sophisticated and less ‘clunky’
hardware and software for electronic games.
The handheld Nintendo Game Boy was
commercially available in Europe in the
early 1990’s. By October 2007 Nintendo
Corporation was Japan’s third most valuable
company thanks to sales of DS and Wii
consoles and games (Reuters, October, 2007).
Email was developed on a small scale as early
as 1965. The term ‘Internet’ was adopted in
1974 to describe developing technology and
systems that allowed information sharing
between computers. Widespread use of the
Internet began in the 1990’s and by 2008,
65% of UK households had Internet access.
(Office of National Statistics)
In recent years children and young people
have gained increased access to online games,
multiplayer online games (where many people
play together from remote computers) and
social networking sites. Tim Gill suggests
in No Fear, Growing Up in a Risk Averse
Society, that ‘it is only in the last few years
that even a minority of children have made
online activities a feature of their daily lives.’
However, online play is rapidly becoming
increasingly popular with a wide range of
people.
In 2008, when there was a downturn in the
sales of other forms of home entertainment
and a general slow down in consumer
spending, sales of computer games and
consoles increased by 23%. (The Times, Jan
2009).
‘I’d rather play computer games on my
own because I consentrate [sic] more and
because I get very angry if I lose and I
don’t want to be mean to my friends.’
2
Why is it so cool?
Consumerism
Companies such as Sony, Nintendo and
Microsoft spend a great deal of money
advertising their computer games – making
them appear exciting and ‘cool’, a lifestyle
choice as much as a game. In order to make
more money, their consoles and games
soon become obsolete and consumers are
encouraged to buy ‘newer’ and ‘better’
products. Children and young people are very
keen to fit in with their peers, to appear ‘cool’,
to own the latest electronic gadgets and to
play the latest games. Parents and carers can
tend to collude - they don’t wish their children
to feel deprived or to be excluded from the
social currency shared between other children.
This may be particularly the case with parents
and carers of disabled or disadvantaged
children.
Escaping
There is a theory that children and young
people use electronic media and gaming to
play and socialise because this is one of the
‘strategies of escape from and resistance
to control which children employ in their
everyday social lives’. (McNamee, 2000)
There is a common perception that children
and young people are at risk in public
places – they are more likely to be under
the ‘protective accompaniment and control
of adults … independent and unsupervised
opportunities for social contacts are less
available.’ (Buchner, 1990) Therefore
unsupervised Internet access, and playing
computer games, where adults are unlikely
to interfere or intervene, can be seen as
providing a free space to interact.
‘The playing of video games by children can
be seen as a strategy for contesting spatial
boundaries … inverted and mythical space is
there for the player to control and contest.’
(McNamee, 2000)
Where children have fewer chances (in terms
of time, permission/support or locality) to
escape to places where they can create and
discover ‘new worlds’, playing online games
with friends or becoming involved in a virtual
world can provide a means of escape. This
is particularly the case for some disabled
children whose freedom of movement might
be more restricted than that of non-disabled
children.
Being in Control
It may be argued that because adults
increasingly colonise, timetable and supervise
children’s lives, even their leisure time,
opportunities for children to control and
influence their environment are fewer now
than hitherto. Playing computer games allows
children to gain some element of control and
mastery within one aspect of their lives. In
other words, children and young people exploit
the ‘digital divide’ between themselves and
less confident or less knowledgeable adults,
to gain control. Pal Andree Aarsand writes of
children using the digital divide to keep adults
‘on the edge of the playing field.’ (Aarsand,
2007)
3
Play and Play Provision
From observational and anecdotal evidence
we can see that for some disabled children
in particular, the sense of empowerment in
being able to solve problems independently,
the sense of their own competence, the ability
to have mastery within a virtual environment,
and the virtual ‘freedom of movement’
afforded within computer games often contrast
with negative experiences in ‘real life’.
‘The video game inverts the passive viewerscreen relation by allowing the player to
intervene, and to exercise some control over
the pace and unfolding of electronic text.
These characteristics allow a momentary
sliding of power from the outside world to the
self.’ (Gottschalk, 1995)
Is it play?
There appears to be no such thing as
‘electronic play’ it is neither a play type
nor a play behaviour as defined in current
literature. However, the play ‘prop’ provided
by some computer games may support some
play mechanisms to a degree (for instance
immersion, neophilia, and co-ordination).
(Hughes, 2002)
There is no doubt, to anyone who observes
children and young people playing with some
computer games that they are experiencing
or expressing some elements of what we
might recognise as play types and behaviours.
Some games provide opportunities for virtual
exploratory, mastery, fantasy, identity or
rough and tumble play for instance. (Hughes,
1996, and 2001)
‘… multiplayer online role playing games have,
we suggest, considerable potential for young
people to ‘make’ their own identities as they
negotiate a range of exotic and challenging
virtual environments.’ ‘Hanging out in
Runescape’: identity work and leisure in the
virtual playground, (Children’s Geographies
Vol 4 Issue 3, December 2006)
However, many of us understand play to
be something that encompasses first hand
experiences and there are those who believe
that virtual gaming is a poor substitute for
‘real life’ play. Imagine, for instance, the
range of physical sensations, skills and
emotions involved in having a snowboard
race, compared with those involved in
playing a virtual snowboarding game – the
fun of swinging next to a friend in the park
as compared to that of swinging in a virtual
environment. What happens within a game
is not meant or understood to be a substitute
for real life, even for disabled children or
‘I prefer to play computer games with
others because it’s more fun ... you
can challenge your friends and laugh
at each other when they die.’
4
disadvantaged children for whom it might be
impossible to experience the activities they
can be part of on screen, but sometimes
children’s immersion in a game can shut out
real life experiences and choices.
There are those who define play as freely
chosen, personally directed and intrinsically
motivated (Welsh Assembly Government Play
Policy, 2002) and here we begin to reach
difficult territory in terms of computer gaming.
While children may freely choose to take part,
we know that many games are deliberately
designed to induce a state of flow (where the
player becomes completely immersed and
oblivious to what is happening around him
or her) (Games Cultures and Play, Futurelab,
Bristol University) does this indicate free
choice? Who makes the rules and negotiates
the parameters of the game, the child or the
designer? And how much of the game they
are playing will be personally directed – while
there may be choices within the game is the
player really directing the play him or herself?
In terms of being intrinsically motivated
(performed for no reward) many games have
reward systems that induce the player to
continue playing and striving to attain the next
goal. These goals and rules are rarely set by
children, but by the adult designers of the
game.
The rationale for the Welsh Assembly
Government Play Policy (2002) states:
As currently understood a child’s behaviour
is considered as play when several of the
following criteria are evident. Play behaviour
is variously: spontaneous, the result of a
biological drive, first hand experience,
goalless, where the child is in control of the
content and intent, contains play cues or
meta-signals, a performance of motor patterns
in novel sequences, ... repetitious and novel,
non-detrimental and compensatory.
‘I like to play on games on the computer or on the ds better than anything else but I
prefer to play outside with my friends playing badminton, tip, stuck in the mud or
something like that better.’
5
Is there a place for computer games
in play provision?
Within the Playwork Principles (Appendix 4)
play providers are urged to offer access to
the broadest range of environments and play
opportunities. Principle 5 says: The role of the
playworker is to support all children and young
people in the creation of a space in which they
can play.
In 1996 Frank King and Bob Hughes devised
a playwork curriculum (in Play Environments
a Question of Quality) in which it is suggested
that the essential experiences available to
all children within a play setting fall into
the following categories – playing with:
the elements (fire, water, air, earth); their
identity; concepts and the senses. Their ideas
are summarised in the rationale for the Welsh
Assembly Government Play Policy (2002):
• Children need direct and first hand
experience of all four elements. They need the
opportunity to play with fire, water, air and
earth. Children need to play with their identity,
i.e. who they are and what they look like, and
with the whole concept of identity. Children
need to make sense of a world in which much
of what exists is abstract. Children need to be
able to explore the world of concepts. This
doesn’t mean that the concepts have to exist
in reality. The environment for children’s
play should stimulate the senses - music and
sounds, tastes, smells, colours, and different
textures should all be available.
• Other elements of the child’s play
environment will provide access to a varied
landscape, materials, and opportunities for
construction and change. The environment
will provide focuses, choices and alternatives,
and access to tools, loose parts, challenge and
risk.
Ask the children what they want …
Manufacturers spend millions of pounds
promoting and marketing consoles and games
to children and young people, who naturally
respond. When, as play providers we consult
with children and young people to find out
what they want to experience within a play
space we need to take this factor into account.
The Playwork Principles tell us, ‘the play
process takes precedence and playworkers
act as advocates for play when engaging with
adult led agendas.’ The sale of consoles and
games is an adult agenda and we need to
be aware that there is a difference between
children’s play needs (what theory, experience,
training, observation and reflection tell us they
need within the play setting) and their play
preferences (what may have been advertised
to children as being ‘cool,’ ‘exciting’ or
something that ‘everybody else has got’). (Ali
Woods, conversation 2008)
In other words we need to be aware that
children respond to market and peer pressure
(just as we do) but they may lack wider
experience of what might be available in
terms of play opportunities. They can only
ask for what they know of. What they ask for
may be limited by their experience and the
choices normally available to them. What play
provision can offer is a choice of a wide range
of ‘hands on’ play experiences. Sometimes
we have to use our judgment and say that we
know best because we have more experience
and a better idea of all the available
possibilities that can extend children’s play.
‘I think that if I get sad or angry I play
games to take my mind off things. I
try to play out often but the weather
stops me sometimes’
6
Compensation
A play setting compensates children for lack
of opportunity and access to environments
that support a wide range of choices for play –
many children have access to computer games
in other places. Where children don’t have
access to computer games at home, many
play in schools, public libraries and in friend’s
houses.
It might be assumed that there is less
ownership of computer games among
financially poorer socio-economic groups,
however there is research that suggests that
the highest ownership of new media products
is among ‘the middle to lower socio economic
groups ... In contrast these same screen
entertainment media are not taken up to the
same extent by the more educated, ... or by
the poor.’ (Livingstone 2002)
There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that ...
The British are remarkably effective in
disguising their poverty ... (a journalist
found)… a children’s bedroom with the latest
electronic games, so the kids didn’t feel
ashamed at school, but with a mattress on the
floor being the only piece of furniture. (Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 2008)
Some parents (and particularly lone parents
[Livingstone, 2002]) will prioritise spending
on consumer goods that elevate or boost the
social status of their children within their peer
group, by ‘going without’, by borrowing or by
neglecting other household needs.
Risk
One key element of a quality play space is
that children are within an environment where
they can create and encounter risk. With
the currently available range of games and
consoles, children have scant opportunity
to experience physical risk when playing.
However, they can encounter emotional and
social risk taking.
The Byron Review (Byron, 2008) suggests
that, much the same as in any other areas
of play and human interaction, individual
strengths and vulnerabilities need to be
taken into account when assessing whether
certain children take part in certain computer
games ‘... the factors that can discriminate a
‘beneficial’ from a ‘harmful’ experience online
and in video games can be individual factors in
the child.’ (Byron, 2008)
The Byron Review suggests that we approach
online and computer games and gaming in
much the same way that we would any other
aspect of risky play – the dangers are similar
to those in the ‘outside’ world (emotional risk
taking, predatory adults, bullying, potential
exposure to inappropriate aggressive or
sexual images and language). If we are to
include computer games in the range of play
opportunities offered within a play setting
then we need to put in place safeguards and
be prepared to conduct the same kind of
risk assessment and continual dynamic risk
assessment that is good practice in playwork.
(Playwork Principle 8)
Children and young peoples’ technical skills do
not always mean that they have the ability to
identify, assess and manage risks. Given that
often children’s first experiences online involve
game playing I recommend that as part of
the wider information & education strategy
for the Internet, attention should be given to
helping children and young people become
accustomed to the risks of online gaming and
how to deal with them, by raising awareness
that risks inherent in the Internet can be
present in the online gaming environment.
Children should be encouraged to develop
responsible online gaming behaviours from
an early age and empowered to stand up to
peer pressure to play games that may scare
or upset them and just say ‘no’. And, as with
the Internet more generally, children and
young people should be supported to discuss
any anxieties they may have with (an adult).
(Byron, 2008).
‘I am on my own in a room, but I play
and chat to people I haven’t met.’
7
Hogging
Some children are obsessive computer game
players, given the opportunity they will
spend all their free time honing computer
skills and not taking advantage of the range
of opportunities within a play setting. The
same might be said of obsessive football
playing, reading, or any other behaviour that
excludes other possibilities and choices. It
is a playworker’s role to open up possibilities
and broaden the range of play opportunities
that children can take advantage of – to
support them in the creation of a space in
which they can play. Where children are
exhibiting obsessive behaviour of any kind, as
playworkers we need to reflect on the reasons
for this - on the range and attractiveness of
other possibilities available within the setting
and on the way in which we are facilitating
play.
The hogging of computer games (or
snooker tables or football space) can cause
management challenges for playworkers
– who might be called upon to ‘police’ the
sharing of the console and game. Playworkers
may find an ‘intervention dilemma’ here; while
it may not be a playworker’s role to ensure
that everyone acts fairly, it is a playworker’s
role to ensure that all children have access
to the range of play opportunities within the
environment.
Being inclusive
All quality play provision is inclusive. Disabled
children have the same needs and right to
play and socialise, and to make choices about
the play setting they attend, as non-disabled
children. Disabled children have individual
preferences and play needs that are often
the same or similar to those of non-disabled
children, a disabled child may simply require a
level of assistance to meet their play need. It
is suggested that true inclusion is dependent
on friendships and fun rather than simply
being in the same location with others (cited
in Play for a Change, Lester and Russell, Play
England 2008). Playworkers have to work
very carefully to ensure that this happens –
relying on computer games to always occupy
and stimulate play among disabled children is
neither inclusive nor playwork.
Recently experiments have taken place
using an adapted physically interactive
games console to improve the co-ordination
of children with cerebral palsy. (Children
Now, 2008) While children benefit physically,
socially and emotionally through playing, the
improvement of children’s impairments is
neither a playwork agenda nor supportive of
the social model of disability that is upheld
within disabled rights.
There is an argument that computer games
(because they require very little physical
input - extend to disabled children enhanced
possibilities for all sorts of play experiences
and interaction with others. This argument
assumes that all disabled children have a
physical impairment, which is not the case.
Just like most children, many disabled children
have access to computer games elsewhere,
what makes a staffed play setting unique
among the environments where disabled
children spend time, is the support they have
from playworkers to join in and have fun with
other children and to access the playwork
curriculum.
‘I prefer playing computer games
on my own because they can’t boss
me around and I can play whatever I
want.’
8
The age difference
Games are more likely to affect perceptions
and expectations of the real world amongst
younger children because of their less
developed ability to distinguish between fact
and fiction (due to the immaturity of the
frontal cortex). (Byron, 2008)
There is a rating system for computer games,
which suggests the age that children and
young people should have reached before they
play. This rating system is often disregarded,
and within a play setting it is very difficult to
provide the kind of games that older children
desire and enjoy, while excluding children who
are deemed too young to take part or watch.
If we include computer games in the setting,
we put ourselves in a position of having to
‘police’ the use of games to make sure that
the content is age appropriate to all the people
using the setting.
The sex difference
Research and observational evidence suggest
that boys spend more time playing computer
games than girls do. Within play settings they
tend to dominate console use.
Marketing has tended to be directed towards
boys and young men, and games have
been designed to appeal more to them –
incorporating stereotypical interests such
as sport, cars, rock music, mastery, warrior,
‘hunting’ and territorial play. However, the
market is expanding; consoles and games
are increasingly marketed at girls - ‘dance
mats’, the pink DS lite, and games that involve
nurturing animals, teaching, weddings and
fashion, for instance.
The majority of computer games are designed
around the attainment of rewards at regular
intervals. Research from the Stanford
University Medical Centre (Reiss and Robbins,
2008) tells us that computer games activate
the reward regions of boys’ brains more than
they do those of girls.
These gender differences may help explain
why males are more attracted to, and more
likely to become ‘hooked’ on video games than
females.’ (Reiss and Robbins, 2008)
In other research in the UK it was found ‘that
boys were more inclined to spend time in front
of a screen than girls – with 36% (compared
with 22% of girls) recording more than
12 hours a week.’ (Brown, Mackett, Gong,
Kitazawa and Paskins, 2008)
Where we are making decisions regarding
providing computer games within play
provision we need to be aware of this different
reaction by the sexes and the impact that
it will have on the whole setting and our
playwork practice.
Socialising
It may be argued that one of the primary
functions of a play setting is to provide a
space where children and young people can
socialise. Observation tells us that social
play is threaded through almost everything
that children do when they play. Playworkers
support this by keeping the space safe from
outside intrusions and dominant social mores,
so that children can explore their social
surroundings and boundaries. If a quality play
setting is a social setting in itself and contains
a wealth of opportunities for social play, why
do we need to embellish this by adding in
computer games or online networking to meet
this need? A play setting can provide face-toface, real time relationships and conversations
that children might not find elsewhere.
It might be argued that computer games can
extend the social play of children who have
communication impairments – yet playworkers
are employed to support all children to
socialise and to be included in play within a
play setting.
‘I also like playing with others so I can
compete and have a laugh.’
9
A wee bit fit
The first priority of a play setting is to provide
for children’s right and need to play. Quality
play settings provide opportunities for active
physical play; children’s resultant level of
fitness is a happy result of the play setting
being a rich environment – it is not a primary
goal.
Including a physically interactive computer
console in the setting so as to increase
children’s fitness or to provide the only
opportunity for physical play is not a playwork
approach. Research suggests that even
those computer games that require some
physical activity do not contribute sufficiently
to children’s fitness to be counted as part of
the recommended sixty minutes of at least
moderate exercise each day.
Electronic playworker
Computer games and entertainment packages
have been overtly marketed as being
convenient for ‘calming children down’ and
liberating adults’ time. (Sony VAIO ‘Child’s
Play’ advertising promotion 2007/08).
It is argued that some adults use the screen
and computer games as a convenient
‘electronic babysitter’ (Palmer, 2006); they
use children’s attraction to computer games
so that they themselves have freedom to do
something they deem more important, or to
give themselves an ‘easier life’. This can be
particularly the case for some playworkers
who are challenged by boys’ boisterous
behaviour within a play setting, and who use
their attraction to computer games to distract
and pacify. It may well also be the case where
supporting disabled children to play places
unwanted demands on the playworker. The
Playwork Principles tell us that the role of
the playworker is to support all children in
the creation of a space where they can play.
(Playwork Principle 5) It is the role of the
playworker to help children to meet their
play needs, not to pacify, occupy them or
control them through the use of electronic
distractions.
Escape and Control
Computer games may provide opportunities
for virtual escape and control – but attending
quality play settings supported by playworkers
should provide a time, permission/support and
a place where any child can escape, explore,
and ‘create new worlds.’ Although there are
adults present, the playworker’s job is to
protect the time and the place, to enhance
and support all children’s opportunity to
‘escape’ and to control their environment.
As part of Sara McNamee’s research
(McNamee, 2000) she interviewed a boy who
said he liked electronic games because ‘… you
move things about and you do it yourself’. In
the same paper she reports children telling
her that they liked playing electronic games
because they could freely use guns (where
they were ordinarily prohibited from playing
with toy guns) they had access to adventure,
rough and tumble, and could encounter
and deal with risky situations while being in
no physical danger. All of these aspects of
computer gaming are also provided in ‘real life’
(to some degree) within a quality play setting.
‘The games I like playing
on are action games.’
10
Our Perceptions
In order to make informed and objective
decisions about incorporating computer
games in play provision we need to be able to
understand our own responses to their use.
Here we explore some of the responses that
might influence our decision-making:
Fear of the new
The fear and mistrust that some adults show
towards advancing computer technology
can be explained historically by looking at
the mixed and suspicious reaction of some
older people to any technological innovation
(e.g. the telephone, TV or mobile telephone).
Children and young people, by their nature,
tend to embrace new technologies and make
them part of their lives far quicker than do
older people. Pal Andree Arsand (Arsand,
2007)) writes of a digital divide between
generations; a gap between those who master
and don’t master technology.
Helpless ignorance
‘There is a generational divide which means
that parents (and other older people) do
not necessarily feel equipped to help their
children in this space – which can lead to fear
and a sense of helplessness.’ (Byron, 2008)
Sometimes we are nervous because we don’t
know enough about the computer games, how
they are played, or the technology.
• Being in control ‘The assumed order of things – by which
adults hold the keys to knowledge and
experience – is largely inverted when it
comes to the digital world.’ (Gill, 2007)
Some of us need to feel that we have
superior knowledge and the upper hand …
• Value judgements
There is a common public idea of healthy
versus unhealthy pastimes. Some of us
judge playing computer games as less
valuable use of time than say, playing
football, making a picture or reading.
• Missed out?
Some of us may wish to include computer
games within a play setting because we
didn’t have the same opportunity to play
electronic games when we were younger.
(Hughes, 2002)
• Needing to please
Saying yes to a request for computer
games may be an easy way of gaining
children’s approval and acceptance.
• The easy life
If children are busy occupied with
computer games we won’t need to exert
ourselves as much.
• Me too Are we endorsing the purchase of the latest
electronic kit because, really, we want to
have a go?
Not many adults play computer
games, and when they do they are
really rubbish.’
11
Are computer games good or bad?
There seems to be popular confusion as to
whether playing computer games is ‘good’
or ‘bad’ for children. In ‘Hanging out in
Runescape’ (2006) Crowe and Bradford
argue that contradictions in social attitudes
towards computer games mirror attitudes
towards children – they are perceived as ‘our
future’, they are also seen as a source of
delinquency and disorder. They talk about the
contradiction of computer gaming being seen
as, at the same time, frivolous and dangerous.
On the one hand older people are openly
admiring of children’s media literacy; children
are celebrated as competent technology users,
children’s drive to play and explore, their
fascination with ‘cool’ computers, is harnessed
for the purposes of education. Computer
games have become useful educational tools.
On the other hand there seems to be a fear of
demonic possession, addiction, obsession and
the perception that time spent ‘gaming’ is time
wasted. Media journalists make conflicting
reports and often publish or broadcast
sensationalist articles and opinion pieces.
(Purves, in Gill, 1996) Research is often cited
in articles as if it was authoritative, but some
is manufacturer-sponsored, and some is the
result of questionable methodology.
The Good Childhood Inquiry (Executive
Summary, Children’s Society, 2009) makes
sweeping generalisations that may fuel an
emotional response: “The more a child is
exposed to TV and the internet the more
materialistic they become, the worse they
relate to their parents and the worse their
mental health.”
Couch potatoes?
Some commentators blame television for
many of society’s ills:
It has made us more sedentary, passive
and disconnected from one another, or as
it is sometimes put uncharitably, television
has made us fat, lazy, ignorant and selfish.
(Borgman, 2006)
Research from the Department of Preventive
and Social Medicine, University of Otago, New
Zealand, assessed the impact of television
viewing on the body mass index of over 1,000
children from birth to 15 years. The study
found that, ‘time spent watching television is a
significant predictor of BMI and overweight in
childhood.’ (Hancox and Poulton, 2006)
12
Slayers and smiters
Skills
Various studies of the effect of TV watching
have been carried out since the 1950’s, but
there is still little research into the longterm effects and there is little conclusive,
direct evidence that watching violent content
causes aggression. It is difficult, for instance,
to test the effect on children of watching
aggressive TV because it would be unethical
to deliberately expose them to violent films
and programmes (or to adult rated computer
games). (Gill, 1996))
The skills developed by children playing
computer games are considerable – the
majority of games involve problem solving,
strategy, hand eye co-ordination and much
more. (Gee, 2008) Adults tend to perceive
these skills when used within education as
praiseworthy competency, and when used
within children’s free time as those of a
wastrel – the manifestation of misspent youth.
Päl André Aarsand argues that the skills and
knowledge required are a changing set of skills
– they are new and different, not less - there
is a new literacy in terms of computer play.
(Aarsand, 2007)
Worries about the effect of television on
children seem to be heightened where children
are using a screen to play games. There
appears to be a number of reasons for this:
• There is a perception that because
children and young people are actively
involved (mentally – for instance,
slaying depersonalised ‘cannon fodder’,
destroying and demolishing to collect
rewards) rather than passive TV viewers,
the potential for psychological harm and
‘copy-cat behaviour’ must be greater.
The most persistent and controversial
question concerning video games and
children is the question of violent content
and it’s potential influence on aggressive
behaviour. This has been a subject of
public debate over recent years and has
been reviewed on various occasions both
by Government and industry (Goldstein,
2001: Boyle and Hibberd, 2005),
Interactive Software Federation of Europe
(ISFE) conferences). The research remains
highly controversial and inconclusive.
(Byron, 2008)
• There is a fear that children are unable to
distinguish between what is real and what
is electronically generated. This appears
to be the case among very young children,
(Byro, 2006) although individuals vary
and many children are able to differentiate
between real and pretend at an early age.
The Demos report Their Space: Education for
a digital generation (Green and Hannon, 2007)
showed that some children and young people
are using the Internet and computer games
as an area in which they can use their own
creativity and ingenuity. It calls young people
who develop new ways of creating, sharing
and using content ‘digital pioneers’.
Development of superior visual skills (hand
eye co-ordination) gained through playing
computer games is beginning to be recognised
within some professions, for instance,
surgeons who perform laparoscopy. (Nature
Clinical Practice Urology, 2005).
Fitness
Computer games have been implicated in
obesity and lack of fitness among children and
young people. Manufacturers have responded
to this and to common concerns about fitness
by producing consoles and games that require
a level of physical engagement (beyond
developing the muscles and reaction times of
the thumbs and fingers).
Manufacturers’ marketing ploys play on the
current concerns of adults regarding their
children and promise that games will make
them more intelligent or fitter. The Fisher
Price Smart Cycle won the Toy Industry
I’ like to go on MSN so I can chat to
my mates from school. Every day I
spend 2-3 hours on the laptop.’
13
Association Toy of the Year 2008. It is
an exercise bike linked to an educational
computer game that shows on the television
while the child ‘rides’. Initially it was marketed
as a way of keeping children fit and smart
within the safety of their own home.
In a study of eleven young people conducted
in 2007 (Graves, Stratton, Ridgers and Cable)
researchers compared the energy expenditure
of young people playing sedentary and ‘active’
computer games. They found that playing
a computer game used slightly more energy
than simply sitting, and that:
Playing new generation active computer
games uses significantly more energy than
playing sedentary computer games but not as
much energy as playing the sport itself. The
energy used when playing active Wii Sport
games was not of high enough intensity to
contribute towards the recommended daily
amount of exercise in children.
Socialising
Critics of computer games perceive a lack of
social interaction among children who spend
time on computer games – and see a resultant
decline in social skills. Observational evidence
within play settings suggests that some
children become obsessed with computer
games and fail to interact with others.
Advances in electronic media have provided
a range of options for communication and
interaction that were hitherto unavailable to
some disabled children and young people.
Playing computer games and using electronic
media together with others is often cited as
an opportunity for inclusion – it gives some
disabled children an opportunity to compete
on a ‘level playing field’ and to interact on an
equal footing with their peers. The Internet
and social interactive websites give those
who are isolated a chance to socialise with
others – which is particularly useful to some
disabled children, children who are not allowed
to socialise independently and for children
isolated from their peers by location.
Collaboration
‘It’s better playing with someone than without;
you can share and because then someone
can tell you what to do or you can tell them
what to do. You can use multi-player and play
together.’ Patrick, 10 years old, 2008.
Contrary to public perception, many children
and young people prefer to play computer
games with their friends or family. When
asked ‘who do you play computer games with
most often?’, the vast majority of respondents
to our survey (see Appendices) played games
with friends, siblings or other family (14%
played on their own). When asked their
favourite thing to do, many junior school
aged children preferred to spend time playing
computer games with their friends or family,
or playing outside with friends (36%) while
26% preferred to play computer games on
their own.
Sarah McNamee argues that computer games
now play a role in ‘promoting and sustaining
boys’ friendships through providing a space
for both communication and shared activity’
(McNamee, 2000). Observation suggests that
mixed age groups and disabled/non disabled
children support and encourage each other
through games by sharing knowledge and
sympathising with or praising the player.
Staying Inside
As we increasingly keep our children at home
because of fears for their safety outside – in
what some see as a ‘risk averse’ culture –
they will play out their developmental drives
to socialise and take risks in the digital world.
(Byron, 2008)
There is a common perception that children
have moved from the streets into their
bedrooms (Livingstone and Bovill, 2001)
When surveyed 36 % of children and young
people who responded said that they would
prefer to play outside with their friends than
to be inside playing computer games. (Play
Wales Computer Games Survey 2009 – see
Appendices)
‘For free time I think you should only
play computer games once every
couple of days and spend the rest of
your time playing out with friends.’
14
There is a common perception that children
have moved from the streets into their
bedrooms (Livingstone and Bovill, 2001) When
surveyed 36 % of children and young people
who responded said that they would prefer
to play outside with their friends than to be
inside playing computer games.
Observational evidence suggests that
children’s preferences are influenced by the
weather and the season – they are more
likely to chose to stay in and play a computer
game if the weather is wet, windy and cold.
The Play Wales Computer Games Survey was
conducted during winter.
The absence of children and young people on
our streets is often blamed on their attraction
to indoor computer games. However, there is
a whole range of factors that militate against
children playing out in public places – too
many to describe here – none of which is
solely responsible.
Addiction
One of the chief concerns about computer
play is the level of obsession observed in
those taking part (particularly boys). We all
recognise the scenario where an adult asks a
child to stop playing and they beg for more
time to complete some aspect of the game –
this happens in a whole range of activities in
which children may be immersed. As adults,
if we are managing children’s use of computer
games and limiting the time they spend
playing, we need to be aware that many
games are deliberately designed to induce a
state of flow.
At present there is no accepted diagnosis
of computer game addiction although it is
recognised as an obsessive disorder by some
psychologists and there are therapy centres
in Holland and China that claim to support
‘computer games addicts’ to overcome their
obsession. Sport, collecting, reading, and
outdoor pursuits are all deemed ‘healthy’ and
yet they can elicit the same kind of obsessive
behaviour that playing computer games might.
‘I love to play computer games. if I
had the chance I would play on them
all day long.’
15
Conclusion and Play Wales’ position
Computer games are part of many children’s
lives – and many children have access to
them every day if they want to play that
way. Computer games need to be part of
a wide range of choices of play experiences
and opportunities. They might be seen
as one element of a ‘balanced diet’ of play
(Doug Cole) with equal importance being
put on active, physical play, playing with
the elements, and all the other types and
behaviours of play that all children need in
their every day lives.
On the whole children have easy access to
computers at school, within libraries and
at home but less access to the playwork
curriculum. Some children are deprived of a
range of play experiences because they spend
most of their free time playing computer
games indoors. It is the place of play
provision to offer attractive alternatives.
It is our responsibility to ensure that a play
setting is an environment rich in possibilities
for play that provide children with what they
may lack elsewhere in their lives. This is as
much true for disabled children as it is for
non-disabled children, who are facilitated by
the playwork approach to socialise and play
and make the most of the play environment in
their own way.
Fixed play equipment manufacturers have
started to market interactive electronic
features for outdoor play areas. Electronic
play equipment is expensive both in terms of
capital costs and maintenance, it may provide
marginally more play value than traditional
fixed play equipment, but neither can provide
the play value of a rich play environment
that changes with the seasons, has many
loose parts and a wealth of possibilities for
manipulation and interaction.
Very careful consideration is needed
before computer games are included
in play provision, if at all. As adults
we need to examine our motives,
work out how we will manage the
risks involved, and think about how
computer games might influence the
play within the play setting. The most
important consideration is children’s
play and how it might be affected by
the introduction of computer games.
March 2009
© Play Wales (Any reproduction of this publication, or extracts from it must be attributed to Play
Wales).
This paper was researched and written by Gill Evans with the support of the Play Wales team.
Grateful thanks to Anna and Michael at the Children’s Play Information Service, Di Murray,
Alex Morgan, Swansea Centre for Childhood Studies, all the schools that supported us with the
Computer Games 2009 survey and Play Officers Wales.
Play Wales is the national organisation for children’s play, an independent charity supported by Welsh Assembly
Government to uphold children’s right to play and to provide advice and guidance on play-related matters.
Registered Charity No. 1068926. A company limited by guarantee registered in Wales No. 3507258
www.playwales.org.uk
Bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aarsand, P. A., 2007. Computer and video games
in family life: the digital divide as a resource in
intergenerational interactions. Childhood, 14
(2), pp.235-256.
Borgmann, A., 2006. Real American Ethics,
Taking Responsibility for Our Country. Chicago:
Univeristy of Chicago Press.
Brown B, Mackett R, Gong Y, Kitazawa K, Paskins
J (2008) ‘Gender differences in children’s
pathways to independent mobility’. Special
Issue of Children’s Geographies on New research/
directions in Children’s Geographies November Vol.6,
Issue 4.
Buchner P., 1990. Changes in the Social
Biography of Childhood in the FRG. Childhood,
Youth and Social Change.
Byron, T. 2008. Byron Review: Safer Children
in a Digital World (full report). Nottingham:
Department for Children, Schools and Families, and
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Byron, T. 2008. Byron Review: Safer Children
in a Digital World (executive summary).
Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and
Families, and the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport.
Calvert, E., [email protected] 2008.
Skate parks safe bet for teenagers. [email]. Sent
24 November 2008, 14:51.
Crowe, N. & Bradford, S., 2006. ‘Hanging out in
Runescape’: identity work and leisure in the
virtual playground. Children’s Geographies, 4
(3), pp.331-346.
Gee, J. P., 2008. Cats and Portals, Video Games,
Learning, and Play. American Journal of Play, 1
(2), pp.229-245.
Gill, T., 1996. Electronic Children. London:
National Children’s Bureau Enterprises.
Gill, T., 2007. No Fear, Growing Up in a Risk
Averse Society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian.
Gottschalk, S., 1995. Videology: Video-Games
as Postmodern Sites/Sights of Ideological
Reproduction. Symbolic Interaction, 18 (1),
pp.1-18.
Graves, L., Stratton, G., Ridgers, N. D. & Cable, N.
T., 2007. Energy expenditure in adolescents
playing new generation computer games.
Liverpool: Research Institute for Sport and
Excercises Science, Liverpool John Moores University.
Cited in British Medical Journal [online]. Available
at: www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7633/1282
[accessed 24 February 2009].
Green, H. Hannon, C., 2007. Their Space:
Education for a digital generation. London:
Demos.
Hancox, R. J., Poulton, R. 2006. Watching
television is associated with childhood obesity:
but is it clinically important?, International
Journal of Obesity, 30 (1), pp.171-175.
Hughes, B., 1996a. A Playworkers Taxonomy of
Play Types. London: Playlink.
Hughes, B., 1996b. Play Environments A
Question of Quality. London: Playlink.
Hughes, B., 2001. The First Claim … a framework
for playwork quality assessment. Cardiff: Play
Wales.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hughes, B., 2002. The First Claim – desirable
processes. Cardiff: Play Wales.
Kirriemuir, J., McFarlane, A., 2004. Report 8:
Literature Review in Games and Learning.
Bristol: Futurelab.
Lester, S., Russell, W., 2008. Play for a Change.
London: Play England.
Livingstone, S., Bovill, M. 2001. Bedroom Culture
and the Privitisation of Media Use. Children and
their Changing Media Environment (a European
comparitive study). Oxford, Routledge.
McNamee, S., 2000. Foucault’s heterotopia
and children’s everyday lives. Childhood, 7 (4),
pp.479-492.
Palmer, S. 2006. Toxic Childhood. London: Orion
Publishing Group Ltd.
Playwork Principles. 2005. Cardiff: Playwork
Principles Scrutiny Group.
Purves, L., 1996. A view from the middle
generation. In Gill, T., ed. Electronic Children.
London: National Children’s Bureau Enterprises.
Introduction, pp.1-4.
Reiss, A., Robbins, H. C., 2008. Gender differences
in the mesocorticolimbic system during
computer game-play. Journal of Psychiatric
Research. 42 (4), pp253-258. Cited in Stanford
University Medical Center, 2008, February 8.
Video Games Activate Reward Regions Of Brain In
Men More Than Women. ScienceDaily. Retrieved
February 24, 2009, from www.sciencedaily.com­/
releases/2008/02/080204140115.htm
Sabbagh. D., 2009. Mum, Dad, even the
grandparents have joined the kids in the fight
for sales between games and music. The Times,
7 January, p.39.
Welsh Assembly Government Play Policy. 2002.
Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Wood, A., 2008. Discussion on Screen Games
Use and Play. [Conversation] (Personal
communication, 1 December 2008).
Additional resources
Wikipedia. History of Personal Computers.
[online]. (updated 16 February 2009). Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_
computers (accessed 25 February 2009).
UK Statistics Authority. [online] Available at:
www.statistics.gov.uk (accessed 25 February 2009).
Byron Review. 2008. Safer Children in a Digital
World: Executive Summary. [online pdf]. Available at: [www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Executive%20summary.pdf (accessed 25 February 2009).
Appendix
Appendix one
One
Questions
Computer Games Survey 2009
Children survey
1. How old are you?
2. Are you male or female?
3. Do you have any of these at home? (tick as
many as you have)
a. Nintendo Wii
b. PlayStation
c. Nintendo DS
d. Computer
e. Any other machine you play computer games
on at home?
4. If you don’t have computer games at home,
where do you play computer games? (tick more
than one if you need to)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Friend’s house
After school club
School
Library
On my mobile phone
I don’t
Anywhere else? Please tell us
5. Do you play computer games on the internet?
a. Yes
b. No
6. How often do you usually play computer games?
(tick only one)
a. Every day
b. Once every couple of days
c. Once every 3-4 days
d. Once a week
e. Once every two weeks
f. Once a month
g. Never
7. How long do you usually play computer games
each time you play? (tick only one)
a. Less than an hour
b. 1-2 hours
c. 2-3 hours
d. 3-4 hours
e. 4-5 hours
f. 5-6 hours
g. more than six hours
8. Where do you play computer games most often?
(tick only one)
a. Home
b. Friend’s house
c. After School Club
d. Library
e. On mobile phone
f. School
g. Anywhere else? Please tell us
9. Who do you play computer games with most
often? (tick only one)
a. Friends
b. By myself
c. On the internet with people I haven’t met face
to face
d. Brothers or sisters
e. Other family
f. On the internet with friends
g. Anyone else? Please tell us
10. Would you rather play computer games on
your own or together with others?
a. On my own
b. Together
10a. Please to tell us why.
11. Do you chat about computer games with others?
(tick as many as you need to)
a. On the computer
b. Face to face or on the phone
c. I don’t chat about computer games
12. If you do chat about computer games, how often?
(tick only one)
a. Every day
b. Once every couple of days
c. Once every 3 – 4 days
d. Once a week
e. Once every couple of weeks
f. Once a month
g. Never
13. If you chat about computer games, how long do
you spend chatting? (tick only one)
a. Less than 5 minutes
b. 5 – 10 minutes
c. 10 – 20 minutes
d. 20 -30 minutes
e. More than 30 minutes
14. Do you swap computer games with friends? (tick
only one)
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Never
Young people survey
1. How old are you?
2. Are you male or female?
3. Do you have access at home to any of the
following? (tick more than one if needed)
a. Nintendo Wii
b. PlayStation
c. Nintendo DS
d. Computer
e. Other consoles – please specify
4. If you don’t have access to a console or computer
at home, where do you play computer games? (tick
more than one if needed)
a. Friend’s house
b. Youth club
c. School
d. Public library
e. On my mobile phone
f. Other – please specify
5. Do you play online computer games?
6. How often (roughly) do you usually play computer
games? (tick one)
15. Please number these - put number 1 in the box
next to your favourite thing to do, number 2 next to
your second favourite and so on until you reach 5,
which is your least favourite thing to do
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
a.
b.
c.
d.
7. How long do you usually play computer games
each time you play? (tick one)
play computer games indoors on my own
play computer games indoors with my friends
play computer games indoors with my family
spend time playing at home with my friends or
family (not with computer games)
e. spend time playing outside with my friends
16. Is there anything else you would like to tell us
about playing computer games, or what you like to do
in your free time? Please tell us.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Every day
Once every couple of days
Once every 3-4 days
Once a week
Once every couple of weeks
Once a month
Never
Less than an hour
1-2 hours
2-3 hours
3-4 hours
4-5 hours
5-6 hours
more than six hours
8. Where do you play computer games most often?
(tick one)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Home
Friend’s house
Youth Club
Library
On mobile phone
School
Other – please specify
9. Who do you play computer games with most often?
(tick one)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Friends
Myself
Online with people I haven’t met face to face
Brothers or sisters
Other family
Online with friends
Other – please specify
10. Would you rather play computer games alone or
together with others?
a. Alone
b. together
10a. Please use this space to tell us why.
11. Do you chat about computer games with others?
(tick more than one if needed)
a. Online
b. Face to face or on the phone
c. Neither
12. If you do chat about computer games, how often
approximately? (tick one)
a. Every day
b. Once every couple of days
c. Once every 3 – 4 days
d. Once a week
e. Once every couple of weeks
f. Once a month
g. Never
13. When you chat, how long do you spend chatting?
(please tick one)
a. Less than 5 minutes
b. 5 – 10 minutes
c. 10 – 20 minutes
d. 20 -30 minutes
e. More than 30 minutes
14. Do you swap games with friends? (please tick
one)
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Never
15. Please rank these options as to how you would
usually prefer to spend your free time (one for your
favourite pastime and six for your least favourite)
a. play computer games indoors on my own
b. play computer games indoors with my friends
c. play computer games indoors with my family
d. spend time socialising at home face to face with
my friends or family
e. spend time socialising away from home with
friends
f. spend time being active outdoors with friends
16. Is there anything else you would like to tell us
about your use of computer games, adults perceptions
of how young people use computer games or your
preferences for spending your free time? Please use
this box to tell us.
Appendix two
Computer Game Survey 2009
Results
In February 2009 Play Wales received over 500 surveys (285 from primary schools and 217
from High Schools) throughout Wales (see appendix one). The following is a summary of the
results:
Primary School Survey Results
How long do you usually play computer games
each time you play?
Do you have any of these at home?
ipod 2%
gameboy 6%
More than 6 hours
6%
other 2%
5-6 hours 2%
4-5 hours
5%
Psp 2%
nintendo wii
22%
Xbox 360
9%
computer
9%
3-4 hours
11%
2-3 hours
15%
play station
21%
nintendo ds
27%
How often do you usually play computer
games?
2-3 times
a week
13%
Every day
43%
1-2 hours
36%
Who do you play computer games with most
often?
Internet –
people not
met 5%
Every couple
of days
31%
Less than an hour
25%
Once a
week
9%
Once every 2 weeks - 1%
Once a month 1%
never 2%
Other family
2%
Siblings
21%
Family
16%
Internet –
friends 8%
on my own
14%
Friends
34%
your favourite thing to do
Boys
Girls
a
a
25%
e
23%
34%
e
42%
b
18%
b
27%
d
9%
8%
9%
5%
a
b
c
d
e
c
d
c
play computer games indoors on my own
play computer games indoors with my friends
play computer games indoors with my family
spend time playing at home with my friends or family (not with computer games)
spend time playing outside with my friends
favourite least favourite
Activity
play computer games indoors on my own
1
2
3
4
34 28 33 18 25 21 9
play computer games indoors with my
friends
37 21 29 23 41 32 22 30 8
play computer games indoors with my family 7
9
5
17 36 36
14
25 12 30 33 39 30 36 36
spend time at home with my friends or
family (not with computer games)
13 11 20 36 29 20 39 28 36 25
Spend time outside with my friends
47 51 29 31 14 14 26 15 21 9
Boys
(Some of the 285 children surveyed did not complete this section).
Girls
High School Survey Results
Do you have any of these at home?
How long do you usually play computer
games each time you play?
3-4 hours
4%
2 - 3 hours
13%
nintendo wii
20%
4 - 5 hours
1%
play station
24%
i pod 1%
other1%
gameboy
2%
1 - 2 hours
44%
Nintendo DS
20%
less than
an hour
38%
computer
32%
How often do you usually play
computer games?
once a
month 5%
Who do you play computer games with
most often?
never
12%
every day
21%
once every
2 weeks
7%
friends
30%
myself
38%
once a
week
6%
every 3 - 4
days 20%
every couple of
days 29%
Internet friends
12%
other family 2%
Siblings
13%
Internet
people not met
13%
How do you usually prefer to spend your free time?
a
b
2%
Boys
c
5%
Girls
2%
a
16%
f
22%
d
13%
f
b
49%
19%
e
d
56%
12%
c
3%
e
1%
a
b
c
d
e
f
play computer games indoors on my own
play computer games indoors with my friends
play computer games indoors with my family
spend time socialising at home face to face with my friends or family
spend time socialising away from home with friends
spend time being active outdoors with friends
favourite least favourite
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
a) play computer games indoors on my own
11
1
11
1
7
2
11
10
11
11
27
30
b) play computer games indoors with my friends
13
3
10
0
17
8
17
28
19
12
3
4
c) play computer games indoors with my family
2
1
7
4
8
2
17
8
20
25
25
15
d) spend time socialising at home face to face
with my friends or family
8
7
12
19
29
20
13
5
7
4
9
0
e) spend time socialising away from home with
friends
14
31
25
9
10
7
9
2
11
3
9
3
f) spend time being active outdoors with friends
32
12
11
21
9
16
10
2
10
0
7
3
Boys
(Some of the 217 young people surveyed did not complete this section).
6
Girls
Appendix three
Who took part in the Play Wales
Computer Game Survey 2009?
Town
School
Number of children or
young people
Aberystwyth
Ysgol Gymunedol Penrhyn-Coch
40
Cardiff
Ysgol Gwaelod-y-Garth School, Juniors
Radyr Primary School, Juniors
Radyr High School
15
42
187
Merthyr
Edwardsville School, Year 6
81
Prestatyn
Bodnant Junior School
107
Swansea
Ysgol Bryn Tawe
24
Appendix four
Playwork Principles
These Principles establish the professional
and ethical framework for playwork and
as such must be regarded as a whole.
They describe what is unique about play
and playwork, and provide the playwork
perspective for working with children
and young people. They are based on
the recognition that children and young
people’s capacity for positive development
will be enhanced if given access to the
broadest range of environments and play
opportunities.
1. All children and young people need to
play. The impulse to play is innate. Play
is a biological, psychological and social
necessity, and is fundamental to the healthy
development and well being of individuals and
communities.
2. Play is a process that is freely chosen,
personally directed and intrinsically
motivated. That is, children and young
people determine and control the content and
intent of their play, by following their own
instincts, ideas and interests, in their own
way for their own reasons.
3. The prime focus and essence of playwork is
to support and facilitate the play process and
this should inform the development of play
policy, strategy, training and education.
4. For playworkers, the play process takes
precedence and playworkers act as advocates
for play when engaging with adult led
agendas.
5. The role of the playworker is to support all
children and young people in the creation of a
space in which they can play.
6. The playworker’s response to children and
young people playing is based on a sound up
to date knowledge of the play process, and
reflective practice.
7. Playworkers recognise their own impact on
the play space and also the impact of children
and young people’s play on the playworker.
8. Playworkers choose an intervention style that
enables children and young people to extend
their play. All playworker intervention must
balance risk with the developmental benefit
and well being of children.