Huizinga defines play as something that is free and consuming.  It is an activity that primarily exists beyond ordinary life in a way that serves no benefit nor gains. Play, according to Huizinga has fixed rules and stimulates social interactions – such interactions may be considered to be secretive and separate from the ordinary world.

Caillois mirrors Huizinga’s definition of play in that it is free; existing apart from the ordinary world and within its own confines of time and space. Like Huizinga, this notion of free is to imply the antithesis of compulsory – to lose this feature, he argues, would defy the very fundamentals of play. Particularly noteworthy here, is Caillois’ emphasis on the unproductiveness element of play, for which I choose to briefly pause for a moment and refute below.

​

From an Early Childhood perspective, to say that play is unproductive defies the very core of play-based learning. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) released a document entitled Statement on Play-Based Learning, which they define through science (Vygotsky), experts, children, and parents. They take the primary stance that children learn through play by developing their ability to innovate and create. Ultimately, the CMEC argues that play and academics are inherently inseparable and failure to recognize this will serve to inhibit - rather than to promote - optimal learning outcomes for children.

To provide depth to this argument, consider the following situation I experienced as an RECE working at a daycare inside of a gym.

Three children are taking turns rolling exercise dice (featured above). The aim of the game (according to the children) is to be the first one to complete the exercise. For instance, if a child rolls a “4” on one die and “sit-ups” on another, the children simultaneously do 4 sit-ups and try not to finish last. The child to finish last for each exercise gets eliminated. The last one standing is the winner.

Child A: If we keep playing this game we will be strong like mummy and daddy who work out in the gym.

Child B: Yes, like my mom who does Hot Yoga.

Child C: Or mine, who lifts very big weights. Like as heavy as a whole car even.

The children resume the game and eventually complete it with one winner.

Taking this excerpt into consideration, it is evident that these children see an alternate, larger outcome of the game that lies outside of the boundaries of free play and within the realm of the ordinary world. According to Caillois, this would not be classified as play. But here is where I challenge him: one can still engage in play with the understanding that they will gain from the activity. While this gain may not be immediate (for instance, participating in games that you believe will increase brain functionality such as those featured in Lumosity), it is still, nonetheless, play.

Now, to address how people come to construct knowledge through play will involve some philosophical speculation on my part. I would like to suggest here, that people construct knowledge through play by engaging in a metacognitive practice that allows the players to consciously consider the play experience both during and after the game. Considering the preceding example of the children playing with exercise dice, it can be noted that they engaged in a reflexive practice that, in a way, bridged their play world with the ordinary world. This bridge between the play and ordinary worlds is what I believe allows players to construct knowledge through play (and consequently, “do” ludic epistemology).

This argument is also mirrored in the work of Apperley and Beavis (2013) who discuss this very aspect of metacognition in the context of learning through games. They note, “Attention here is both on the specific curricular knowledge and understandings fostered through particular games, and on developing players’ increased awareness of meta-cognitive strategies and processes” (p. 7). Apart from metacognition, the authors also note the aspect of curricular knowledge. As such, I believe that in order to create optimal conditions for students to “do” ludic epistemology would require them to have some sort of knowledge regarding the curriculum (either formal or self-created curriculums). This will aid students in bridging their play worlds with the ordinary worlds as they can draw connections between the play experience and the intended outcomes (the curriculum). While this is not essential, I do believe that this curricular knowledge would be ideal for serious learning to occur through play.

In a document released by the Ontario Ministry of Education entitled Play-Based Learning in a Culture of Inquiry in Kindergarten (2017), the authors note ideal aspects of the learning environment. Among these aspects the authors emphasize the use of outdoor play on the playground as it is ideal for “exploration”. This link between childhood play and the outdoors would be what Caillois would define as a “place for play” (p. 125). Creating educational conditions to invite learners to “do” ludic epistemology, then, might also consider reaching out to places of play such as playgrounds for instance. Or, if considering the digital realm, one might consider creating “places of play” in a virtual landscape.

​

The very foundation of play-based learning and even inquiry-based learning is a direct contradiction to traditional forms of schooling. As CMEC notes, “continuing with traditions simply because things have always been done that way” is what these new(er) educational frameworks stand against. Ultimately, CMEC notes that “when children are playing, children are learning”.

​

​

​

​

​

References:

​

Apperley, T. & Beavis, C. (2013). A model for critical games literacy. E Learning and Digital Media, 10(1), 1-12.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2010). CMEC Statement on Play-Based Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/282/play-based-learning_statement_EN.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017). Play-based learning in a culture of Inquiry in Kindergarten. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership/pdfs/issue17.pdf

Huizinga, J. (2005). Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon.In K. Salen and E. Zimmerman (Eds.) The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology (pp. 96-120). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Caillois, R. (2005).  The Definition of Play and the Classification of Games. In K. Salen and E. Zimmerman (Eds.) The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology (pp. 122-155). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.