The developmental benefits
The current trend to exclude playground play that involves risk—physical contact between players, being hit with balls, or even running on the playground—is a historically unique restriction that exacts damaging consequences for the health and fitness of children.
For centuries, uninhibited play was natural and common for both animal and human children.
During the past few decades, remarkable changes were imposed on children by over-protective adults and those who believe that play is trivial, inconsequential, and damaging for academic achievement. Traditional games and contests such as wrestling, mock fighting, chase, dodgeball, tag, King of the Mountain, war games, “shinney,” and climbing trees are forbidden. In a growing number of schools, recess is laden with rules or deleted altogether under the guise of protecting children from injury, but in many schools, this really means taking more time to sharpen test-taking skills.
Early sand and water play, riding tricycles, playing simple chase games, friendly wrestling, house play, etc., all contribute to the development of pre-concepts valuable for social success and later academic learning. As children develop physical and social skills, they engage in the elaboration of play themes and increasingly challenging games and playground equipment. Rough play posing reasonable risks for elementary school-age children builds on the skills and development of earlier play, enhancing social interaction and learning, physical challenges that promote fitness, and multiple cognitive benefits resulting from practice in organizing, negotiating, following play scripts, learning language, and problem-solving. Chase games and rough-and-tumble play are two common examples of such play.
Play researchers categorize play in different ways. Some link chase to rough-and-tumble (R&T), and others maintain that the two forms of play have distinctive qualities and outcomes. R&T involves mock aggression wherein children engage in playful wrestling and such games as “King of the Mountain.” Chase games involve two or more players creating variations of children chasing children—chasers and chasees—with the goal of one successfully catching the other, and starting the game or a modification all over again. Children mix chase with R&T and even with imaginative play and games with rules. The discussion here focuses primarily on chase per se, its value for development and fitness, its patterns or sequences of development, and its facilitation.
Two University of Texas graduate students (Clarke, 1999 & Schneider, J., 1997) studied children and researched extensively to identify the developmental stages of chase games. Beginning with reciprocal mother-child interactions in infancy, the chase has its origins in simple social games such as peek-a-boo. Brief but repeated chasing episodes are seen at about age two when toddlers play chase and flee and make early, random overtures to do this with peers. This occasionally results in bumps and bruises resembles a form of R&T and can lead to real aggression or intent to harm. About age three children begin to use both verbal and nonverbal cues to initiate chase. Toys may be used to initiate the game and chaser and chase roles may be interchanged.
Around age four, themes such as mommy or monster may be involved, role reversal is deliberate, and games end with touch or capture, or R&T and possible hitting. Children are identifying predetermined outcomes. Fives and sixes are learning such variations as tag, hide-and-seek, and preliminary, organized games with rules. Rules are subject to change and arguments may result.
Children learn useful skills through arguing, characterized as negotiation when hurtful aggression does not result. Through the elementary school years, about ages 6 – 12, chase games are both simple and complex, and outcomes depend increasingly on predetermined rules that may change during the game. Breaking a rule usually results in negative consequences, and there are winners and losers.
Boys engage in chase more frequently than girls but many girls appear to enjoy the game and may be the initiators. When asked how chase started, a third-grade girl told me that she sent a note to Michael in the classroom. I asked, “What did it say?”
“Will you chase me during recess?” “Did he chase you?” “Yes.” What happened when he caught you?” “We just started all over again.” On occasion an upper elementary grades boy will catch a girl and fall to the ground together, allowing him to steal a quick peck on the cheek before restarting the game. The game may take many forms, often patterned after TV characters and themes, or simply some unusual idea formulated on the spur of the moment. One game was called “flushing.” When a chaser caught a chasee the chasee held up an arm and the chaser pulled it down to imitate flushing a toilet. Teachers hold radically variant views about themes children are allowed to create, and even whether they should play chase at all.
The primary reason school administrators and teachers give for restricting children from playing chase and other rough games is fear that they may be injured. When allowed, children use playground equipment, and natural objects such as trees, bushes, and boulders in their games. The “best” playgrounds for the chase, the children tell us, are those that have hiding places, high places to climb and jump from, and equipment or natural materials that are “joined” (linked) together to provide extreme challenges so rules can be created that require chaser to follow the chasee. This means traversing every challenge, e.g., overhead equipment, climbers, rocks, tree trunks, and slides that chase traverse, thus taking on characteristics of follow-the-leader. This benefits the more physically fit children and provides barriers and opportunities for developing the physical skills of all the participants. In previous articles in this series, I have pointed out the need for children to master ever more complex physical challenges to help ensure they develop the strength, coordination, flexibility, and cognitive abilities to protect themselves in such games as Chase and R&T and in future risky or rough play.
Chase, like R&T and other rough play, sometimes results in conflicts. We have seen many examples of this among obese children who struggle to fit in and prevail in the chase. Unable to navigate the most challenging obstacles and failing to be chosen for games, they turn to alternative approaches in their oft-futile efforts to “fit in.” Some resort to bullying smaller children, and others try to join small groups involved in tamer games or simply find a vantage point and watch others play. Well-trained teachers, play leaders, or playworkers can deal effectively with all these behaviors and bring everyone into constructive, active play.
Creators, sponsors, and operators of both built and natural playscapes can help ensure that children are reintroduced to such active games as chase and R&T, and that developmentally appropriate play is restored to children’s playgrounds. Their challenges are to listen to children, select or create equipment, materials, and environments that meet children’s natural play needs (see Frost, 1997, 2008), restore recess, and let children play!
References
- Clarke, L. J. (1999). In Reifel, S. (Ed.), Play and Culture Studies. (Vol. 2), Stamford, CT. Greenwood Publishing Group.
- Frost, J. L. (April 1997). Child Development and Playgrounds. Parks and Recreation. 32: 4, 54 – 60.
- Frost, J. L. (Oct. Nov. 2008). Reconnecting Children: The Art of creative play and work.
- Playground Magazine. 8: 6, 26 – 29.
- Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and Child Development. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
- Schneider, J. (1997). An Exploration of Chase Games. Unpublished study. Austin: University of Texas.
