In an effort to try and make the best out of this reading situation:

Play is commonplace. From the time we’re born until our faculties no longer permit us, we play, we interact, we engage, we challenge, we set rules and restrictions and we look for loopholes to avoid them and the entire time we’re engaged in some level of critical thinking. Except for that period between first grade and 16th grade – then it’s all standardized learning and hoopla.

Being the SLS outsider that I am, I realize that this theoretically, philosophically dense reading is probably a staple in R/C, providing a series of anti-standards (or maybe a different set of standards) to apply to the composition classroom. I certainly see its benefit: learning through play; and I can’t help but think about second language acquisition theories that in some way agree with this notion. A child is born and is immediately bombarded with coos and goos of language, and belly time, and play time. They get older and are thrown into Pre-k not so much to learn their ABCs as it is to learn how to play, or socialize, with other kids following a set of certain rules. It’s said that this play time with children their own age teaches them how to learn language, they intuitively pick up syntax structure, pronunciation, the differences between inside and outside voices, and learn to negotiate meaning in a social context with some guided input from the adults monitoring their play. When we look at SLA, we consider context, anxiety, purpose for learning a second language, and, with adults, learn to mitigate the different rules they bring with them into the classroom. Yet, there’s a clear distinction between the playground and the classroom, and if play can’t be forced, how do you encourage students (especially adults with various cultural backgrounds) to play with language – written or spoken?

I have some thoughts, but I’ll tease those out during class maybe.