The Pica Perspective

When Kids Cooperate - Part II

Terry Orlick, a professor at the University of Ottawa, has long been a proponent of cooperative games. As he says in The Second Cooperative Sports & Games Book, games can be "a beautiful way to bring people together. However, if you distort children's play by rewarding excessive competition, physical aggression against others, cheating, and unfair play, you distort children's lives."

On the other hand, about cooperative games, he says the concept is simple: "People play with one another rather than against one another; they play to overcome challenges, not to overcome other people, and they are freed by the very structure of the games to enjoy the play experience itself. No player need find himself or herself a bench warmer nursing a bruised self-image. Since the games are designed so that cooperation among players is necessary to achieve the objective(s) of the game, children play together for common ends rather than against one another for mutually exclusive ends. In the process, they learn in a fun way how to become more considerate of one another, more aware of how other people are feeling, and more willing to operate in one anothers' best interests."

Traditional competitive games are often easily modified to be cooperative. Consider the traditional game of musical chairs, in which the possibility exists for only one winner and many losers. The situation can get ugly. Children will do whatever it takes to keep from being labeled a loser!

But with a simple modification, you have cooperative musical chairs, in which chairs are still removed with every round -- again until there's only one left. But the goal is for all of the children to find a way to share the remaining chairs -- even when just one remains.

The results are hilarious. Instead of punching, poking, kicking, scratching, and screaming, the children are laughing and giggling. You can practically watch their brains working as they try to solve the increasingly challenging problem! And when the game is over and they've achieved a solution (possibilities include everything from lap sitting, to one child sitting and the others creating a chain by holding hands, to every child placing just his or her toes on the chair), they're all winners. And they feel great! Moreover, they've learned valuable lessons about working with others and solving problems.

It's no wonder the research shows preschoolers prefer cooperative activities to competitive ones. It's no wonder the research shows cooperative activities have far more to offer children than competitive ones.

--------

The idea of competition as healthy and human nature is so engrained in our culture that the message about cooperation can be a tough sell! Here are three questions I recently received by e-mail, in response to my column on developmentally appropriate games in the most recent issue of Young Children (the column is available online). These questions are representative of the ones I'm often asked at my presentations for parents and teachers. What are your thoughts?

• Shouldn't children learn to lose gracefully?
• Are we setting children up to fail when we allow everyone to win at games?
• Isn't competition healthy for children?

When Kids Cooperate - Part I

With spring here, bringing with it a new sports season, I thought it was time to revisit one of my favorite topics: cooperation.

Used here, the term cooperation is not intended to refer to good behavior or compliance. Rather, it means the positive collaboration that takes place between and among children -- as seen, for example, when children devise their own games, alternate turning the jump rope for one another, and play cooperative musical chairs (described in next week's post).

Unlike competition, which research shows can foster antisocial behaviors, cooperation has been determined to promote prosocial behaviors. Steve Grineski, author of Cooperative Learning in Physical Education, says the social skills needed for cooperative learning include:

• Listening to others
• Resolving conflict
• Supporting and encouraging others
• Taking turns
• Expressing enjoyment in the success of others
• Demonstrating the ability to criticize ideas, not individuals

In No Contest: The Case Against Competition, Alfie Kohn identifies a great deal of research demonstrating cooperation's positive effects on both social and emotional development. Kohn says cooperation:

• Is more conducive to psychological health
• Leads to friendlier feelings among participants
• Promotes a feeling of being in control of one's life
• Increases self-esteem
• Results in greater sensitivity and trust toward others
• Enhances feelings of belonging
• Increases motivation

When children are given the chance to work together toward a solution or common goal -- whether creating a game or building a human pyramid -- they know they each contribute to the success of the venture. Each child realizes he or she plays a vital role in the outcome, and each accepts the responsibility of fulfilling that role. They also learn to become tolerant of others' ideas and to accept the similarities and differences of other children. Furthermore, cooperative activities seldom cause the feelings of inferiority that can result from the comparisons made during competition. On the contrary, because cooperative and noncompetitive activities lead to a greater chance for success, they generate greater confidence in children.

Although competition is commonly believed to be human nature, Scott Scheer, an associate professor in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development at The Ohio State University, contends we humans actually have a "cooperative imperative" -- a desire to work with others toward mutual goals that can run the spectrum from conceiving a child to sending a rocket to the moon. He may be right. Using MRI technology to determine the effects of both competition and cooperation, scientists at Emory Univeristy found that when people collaborate, the brain sends out pleasure responses!

To be continued...

Brain Gym

This week's featured interview on BAM Radio is with Paul Dennison, the creator of Brain Gym, a concept that so clearly proves the mind and the body are not separate entities! Here's my favorite story related to Brain Gym:

In Carla Hannaford's Smart Moves: Why Learning Is Not All in Your Head, she tells the story of Todd, who at 16 years old was uable to read -- but not for lack of trying. His parents had spent thousands of dollars on reading programs, but all had failed; Todd was certified learning disabled. Also, although he was six feet, two inches tall and the basketball team was eager to have him participate, he was too clumsy, unable to get from point A to point B while dribbling a ball (a bit of a prerequisite for playing hoops).

Then his mother made a discovery while at a conference in California. That discovery was Brain Gym. Very excited, she returned home and announced, "Todd, we're going to Cross Crawl."

Now, Cross Crawling is simply a matter of standing and slowly touching opposite elbow to knee, alternating from one side to the other. To be sure Todd would actually do it, the whole family Cross Crawled together every morning before Todd went to school and every night before he went to bed. Six weeks later, Todd was reading at grade level. He later became a fully participating member of the basketball team -- and even later received a college degree in biology!

Coincidence? Highly unlikely. Dr. Hannaford tells us that cross-lateral movements (actions involving the left arm and right leg or the right arm and left leg at the same time -- like a baby's crawling or creeping) activate both hemispheres of the brain in a balanced way. Also involved are coordinated movements of both eyes, ears, hands, feet, and balanced core muscles. The result of all this balanced and coordinated movement is that the corpus callosum, the area between the two hemispheres of the brain, as well as the brain's four lobes, become more activated. According to Hannaford, this cross-hemisphere communication heightens cognitive function and increases ease of learning.

Because the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, and the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, crossing over the midline of the body (the imaginary line running down the center of the body, from head to toe), as is the case when touching opposite elbow to knee, prompts the two hemispheres of the brain to communicate with each other. In Todd's case, specifically, he was finally able to integrate all the information that had been "up there" all along!

If you know a child who's having difficulty reading, give the Cross Crawl a try. It certainly can't hurt -- and it might do a world of good!

Crisis in Kindergarten

Yesterday the Alliance for Childhood released to the media a report it has taken them nine long months to create, according to Joan Almon, executive director of the organization. Written by Joan and Alliance program director Edward Miller, and with a foreword by David Elkind and an afterword by Vivian Gussin Paley, the report is titled "Crisis in Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School." The report will be in print in a couple of weeks but has already been posted on the Alliance website, where you can read and comment on it. (To comment, click on the little dialog icons just above the paper clip icon on the left-hand side.)

A brief summary of the report on the Alliance home page reads:

New research shows that many kindergartens spend 2 to 3 hours per day instructing and testing children in literacy and math—with only 30 minutes per day or less for play. In some kindergartens there is no playtime at all. The same didactic, test-driven approach is entering preschools. But these methods, which are not well grounded in research, are not yielding long-term gains. Meanwhile, behavioral problems and preschool expulsion, especially for boys, are soaring.

Here are some of the statements found in the report:

• Accountability must go beyond standardized test scores and look at gains and losses in children's overall physical and mental health.
• Open-ended play is now a minor activity, or has been completely eliminated, in the kindergartens studied.
• Standardized testing has become an established part of kindergarten in spite of serious doubts about its validity in early childhood.
• A new study found that mothers are deeply concerned that their children are missing out on the joys of free play and natural exploration.
• "Faster is not better when it comes to early education." (Nancy Carlsson-Paige)
• There is a long-established view that kindergartens are quite different developmentally from first-graders and that their education should reflect that difference.
• Retention in kindergarten has increased even though research indicates that it does not help children and can do serious harm.
• Students who went to playful preschools had significantly fewer arrests and fewer years of special education for emotional impairment than similar students who went to a didactic, scripted-teaching preschool.
• Too many schools place a double burden on young children. First, they heighten their stress by demanding that they master material beyond their developmental level. Then they deprive children of their chief means of dealing with that stress -- creative play.

And, finally:

Once a kindergarten hums with play, all forms of learning take place spontaneously and deeply.

Whether you are a parent or a teacher, you should read this important report. You'll find information you can use to advocate for developmentally appropriate practices. Most importantly, if you're a teacher or a parent who has been frustrated by current, inappropriate practices, you'll find support.

Is Your Child Physically Ready for Sports?

This week's featured interview on BAM Radio is with Bob Bigelow, former NBA player turned advocate for what's developmentally appropriate in children's sports. Bob told me that there is a huge disconnect between what parents believe about children's sports and what is genuinely beneficial to children. I couldn't agree more.

So, with that conversation in mind, along with the approach of spring, I've decided to devote this post to a topic near and dear to my heart: the physical readiness of the average child under 8 years of age.

Although every child develops at his or her own pace, there are certain "givens" where young children are concerned. One is that they're still growing. Their bones have not completely calcified, their muscles have not reached their peak volume, and their organs are not fully developed. Additionally, their bodies don't possess the mechanisms needed to relieve their bodies of heat; their visual perception is a long way from mature; and their eye-hand and eye-foot coordination won't be entirely developed for another several years.

In a nutshell, children are not just short adults. Among other things, expecting them to play adult games with adult rules and adult-sized equipment puts them in harm's way physically. Doctors, including fitness expert Kenneth Cooper, of the Aerobic Institute in Dallas, advise against high-impact sports like hockey and football for children under the age of 8 because of the immaturity of their organs and skeletal structures. Soccer, which is thought to be safe for children of both genders, actually has a high rate of injury among young children. Even among professional players, almost one-third suffer at least one injury every season.

Where baseball and softball are concerned, the possibilites are even more frightening. These sports were recently determined to be the leading cause of sports-related eye injuries in children, with the highest incidence occurring in children between the ages of 5 and 14. Even scarier, during a seven-year period in the 1990s there were 40 baseball- or softball-related deaths of children in that same age span. The primary cause of death were blows to the head, neck, and chest.

Among the reasons for these horrific statistics are the facts that:

• young pitchers can't yet throw accurately;
• young children don't possess the reaction time needed to instantly evade a fast-approaching ball
• the chest walls of young children are thinner than those of teenagers and adults;
• figure-ground perception -- the ability to distinguish an object from the surroundings -- doesn't reach maturity until 8 to 12 years old; and
• depth perception -- the ability to judge distance in relation to oneself -- isn't usually mature until about age 12.

According to the American College of Sports Medicine, more than three-quarters of a million children under the age of 14 are treated in emergency rooms for sports-related injuries each year. It's frightening and ironic, considering that concern about children's safety is one of the reasons parents enroll them in organized sports.

Studies in the News

Yesterday it was reported that children living close to parks and other play areas are more active. That may not seem so surprising, as we imagine children "frolicking" when we think of them in parks and playgrounds. What's interesting is that the study, conducted by researchers at Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center and Université de Montréal in Canada, found that for every park within a half-mile of home, a girl's likelihood of walking to school doubled and a boy's odds of taking part in leisure walking increased by 60 percent.

"There was a strong association between walking and the number of nearby public open recreational spaces, including neighborhood parks, playgrounds and sports fields," the study's lead author, Tracie A. Barnett, said in a news release issued by the Heart Association. "We were able to relate the proximity and number of parks to how often children aged 8 to 10 years walked."

Data for the study came from 300 families and more than 600 children participating in a study of weight and cardiometabolic risk in kids. Children in the study were all considered at a high risk for obesity because at least one parent already was obese. The researchers said that the findings were consistent even when factoring in family income and average level of education in the neighborhood, a measure of economic advantage.

Childhood and adolescent obesity increased three-fold in the past two decades, a rapid climb that Barnett said is thought to be more environmental than biological.

"In the past few decades, we have become more sedentary due to the increased use of labor-saving devices, motorized transportation, television and computers," she said. "In addition, children are spending more time inside, yet we know that spending time outdoors is an important determinant of activity. In future urban improvements, consideration must be given to parks, outdoor recreational areas and walking or cycling infrastructure in order to increase active living. Equally important is that the parks and recreational areas are well maintained and are safe."

The researchers plan to continue following the participant families for the next decade, or until the children turn 18, to measure how environment affects their weight.

According to an American Heart Association statement issued in June, "walkable" neighborhoods -- featuring sidewalks and places for physical activity -- can make it easier for people to get daily exercise and can help fight the climbing obesity rates.

-------------------------

As reported on the CBS Evening News this week, the state of Texas experimented with a mandate for daily physical education and annual fitness tests for the state's 2.4 million kids ages 8 to 18. The idea was proposed to help combat increasing childhood obesity rates, but this first-of-its-kind study also looked at whether or not physically fit kids are better students. And you know what? They are.

According to Texas school officials, after just one year, students are performing better on standardized tests. Moreover, absentee rates -- and behavior problems -- have declined. Also, there is a direct correlation between more cardiovascular activity and better grades. At the top performing schools, where at least 90% of the students pass the state assessment tests, 80% of them are fit. Conversely, at the poorest performing schools, only 40% are fit!

This is exciting news, of course, for those of us who have long believed in the connection between mind and body. (Good grief -- Aristotle and Plato espoused the connection between a healthy body and a healthy mind!) What I find ironic is that it came from the state of Texas, where one of their (former?) state school board members once said that devoting too much time to physical education would result in kids who were healthy but dumb!

Infant Swim Programs

Where do you stand on infant swim programs? There's no doubt that they're highly popular (about five to ten million infants and preschoolers participate in formal instruction). But the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued warnings about them.

Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional injury and death in young children, with rates highest among American children ages one to two. Still, the AAP feels strongly enough about the issue of infant swim programs that is has released two policy statements on the subject, the fist in 1985 and an update in 2000.

According to the association, children are not developmentally ready for swimming lessons until they're four years old. Although they maybe able to perform elementary swimming motions at about 12 months, these motions are more along the lines of a dog paddle than a traditional swimming stroke, or front crawl. And, as with other skills learned before children are developmentally ready, aquatic skills take longer to learn and are limited by the children's neuromuscular capacity. Furthermore, starting early doesn't translate into "a higher level of swimming proficiency compared with those taking lessons at a later age."

In other words, the situation is the same as it is with hurrying other motor skills. Earlier isn't better, and it's certainly not going to help create a future Olympic swimmer. Also, the training itself may have a long-term effect on the child's sense of autonomy (self-sufficiency), as motivation is an essential ingredient in the learning of any skill -- and motivation is not yet in the infant's emotional repertoire.

But there's much more to consider here. Even when the program's intention is to focus on water safety knowledge rather than actual swimming skills (as is the intention of the aquatic programs of the YMCA and the Red Cross), caution is the key. Warns the AAP, "When instruction attempts to optimize learning by reducing fear of water, children may unwittingly be encouraged to enter the water without supervision."

Says David Elkind, in Miseducation, if parents enroll their babies in swim programs specifically to prevent drowning, they may unintentionally be shifting the responsibility for not drowning to the children themselves!

Furthermore, a child without the necessary cognitive skills may be unable to transfer his knowledge from one context to another. I well remember a story told by Kelly Ripa on "Live with Regis and Kelly" that illustrates this point. Kelly was telling Regis and their audience about her family's trip to Hawaii during which her preschool son was standing in a koi pond feeding the fish. He suddenly slipped and fell facedown into the pond. But, since he'd been enrolled in swimming programs -- several days a week for years -- and possessed many certificates proclaiming he could swim, she and her husband merely waited for their son's swimming skills to kick in. But they never did! He remained facedown and then began to sink. It appears the child knew what was expected of him in one situation (the swimming lessons) but not in an entirely new situation. (Being unable to transfer knowledge from one situation to another is to be expected, given the cognitive level of a preschooler.)

As Dr. Elkind points out, there may be other hazards as well. Infants in swimming classes are at risk for "middle-ear infections and potential permanent hearing loss, for autoasphyxiation from swallowing water, and for diarrhea, since the babies are not toilet-trained and the water may be polluted."

This is a highly controversial subject. Enthusiasts of infant swim classes defend them vehemently, claiming that their children have only benefited from them. What have been your experiences? What are your thoughts?

Success and Self-Esteem

One of the main principles of movement education, of which I've been a champion for 29 years, is that children should experience more success than failure. In fact, I subscribe to the belief that, if children aren't experiencing an 80% success rate with a new physical challenge, the challenge should be scaled back. But when I make such statements in my presentations, my words are sometimes misinterpreted as meaning I'm also a champion of the self-esteem movement, which prescribes to the belief that children should never experience failure.

Trust me, that is not what I'm championing.

When I discuss success, I don't mean winning all the time. I'm talking about the success that is earned after trying and achieving, even if only in increments. I'm talking about the experience of making an effort and seeing results -- even if it's just enough to decide that it's worth more effort. (Those of us who've tried dieting know that even seeing small results on the scale keeps us motivated to forge ahead.) I'm even talking about trying and not necessarily succeeding but knowing, at least, that you tried your best.

Yes, I want children to experience more success than failure. A child who tries and succeeds more often than she tries and fails will gain the poise and confidence needed to handle future losses and failures with grace. Also, continual failure teaches children learned helplessness -- the belief that one has absolutely no control over the happenings in one's life and therefore there's no point in trying. Naturally, that's not a lesson you want a child to learn!

When you play games with a child, you can help prepare him for life's realities -- its successes and failures, its satisfactions and disappointments -- by playing honestly. You may have to change the rules somewhat to suit his age or level of understanding, but you shouldn't do it just to ensure him a win. That will only teach him that rules can be altered when they don't suit him. If you win, point out some of the things he did well. And by all means, don't gloat! That will teach him that the product (winning) and not the process (enjoying the game itself) is what matters most. By the same token, when a child engages in competitive games with others, whether he wins or loses, "Did you have fun?" should always be your first question. And if you weren't present, you'll send a strong and important message if you never ask who won.

Success is about positive, enjoyable experiences. Trying and achieving on one's own is one of the most positive and enjoyable of all experiences! Trying and failing but still being loved unconditionally doesn't feel so bad either.

Did you know that Thomas Edison experimented with thousands of filaments before finding the right materials to create a lightbulb that would glow brightly for long periods? Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin by accident, followed by intentional problem solving. And 14 publishers rejected Grace Metalious's manuscript for Peyton Place before she successfully sold it. It eventually became a best-selling novel, a movie, and a television series!

Punished by Rewards?

In a BAM interview, David Elkind told me that wrong ideas seem to catch on more quickly than right ones. I wonder why that is. And I wonder why things seem to get worse, rather than better, even when books like Elkind's The Hurried Child and Alfie Kohn's Punished by Rewards exist.

In yesterday's New York Times, there was a piece written by another BAM interviewee, Lisa Guernsey. In this excellent article, titled "Rewards for Students under a Microscope," I was reminded of the conflicted beliefs surrounding the issue of whether or not rewards work as incentives for children. As Lisa writes, "Among parents, the issue often stirs intense discussion. And in public education, a new focus on school reform has led researchers on both sides of the debate to intensify efforts to gather data that may provide insights on when and if rewards work."

Several years ago I heard Alfie Kohn speak on this issue at a conference. Early childhood professionals have often been taught to use positive reinforcement to motivate children. But Kohn's stance was that this is merely a form of manipulation. I could feel the confusion -- and the resistance -- in the room. I was torn and, for the entire two-hour drive home, argued both sides of the issue in my head.

Today, I mostly agree with him. He told us that day that there are more than 70 studies showing that the more kids are rewarded for doing something, the less interested they are in whatever they had to do to get the reward. Because they're thinking, "If they have to bribe me to do this..." it devalues what you're asking them to do. This, in turn, erodes intrinsic motivation.

Instead of using praise, rewards, or punishment, Kohn suggests that teachers and parents ask children to look at the effects of their actions  on others. In addition, he suggests modeling behavior, planning activities that make children feel connected to one another, and giving them lots of opportunity for choice.

In A Running Start, I offer these suggestions for parents:

• As an alternative to praising or rewarding your child for reading, snuggle together on the couch and read with him. You're modeling positive behavior and helping him associate reading with good feelings.
• When you want your children to play together, offer a small selection of games, inside or outside, to choose from. (Choice is a necessary ingredient in fostering intrinsic motivation, but having too many options to choose from can overwhelm a young child.)
• When you want your child to clean his room, make a game out of it by putting one of his favorite songs on the CD player and challenging him to pick up before the song ends. Cleanup then becomes associated with fun. If you join in, emptying the dishwasher, for example, the sense of togetherness adds to the experience.

Read Lisa's article. Then, if you want to explore the topic further, I recommend Punished by Rewards. This controversial book will engender strong feelings, and unqualified agreement with Kohn is unlikely. But I found that it raised many questions for me, so I feel it's important reading for anyone who spends time with, and serves as an influence upon, children.