The need to step back in playful learning

Something I really admire about learning through play lessons is that they aren’t entirely teacher dependent. There’s no doubt that skilled facilitators can add much value to the learning experience of students. What’s fascinating, though, is that even in the sessions run by inexperienced teachers, who don’t have much skill and understanding of learning through play(LtP), many students are able to successfully experience playful learning. They build projects, collaborate with peers and constantly go on improving the projects till the end of the class. Teachers often get to step back and let students do their work, only intervening when students need help or materials. In some cases though, like one we’ll explore in this article, the intervention of teachers can actually impede the engagement of students. Despite this many students are able to play in these lessons.

One morning in a remote village in Gulmi, the students of grade 4 and 5 were engaging in learning through play. Their teachers, Suraj and Sharmila, had planned a Kheldai Sikdai lesson on building catapults. But they hadn’t had enough time to prepare for the lesson. I could see the lack of preparation in the unplanned interruptions, peeks at the educator guide, and a missing flow of the lesson.

Two boys, seated on a bench in front of a window, grabbed my attention. They were working on a different design for their catapult. They were trying to give it wheels. One of them tried to pierce a hole in a bottle cap, and soon there was a pop sound.

“It’s broken,” said one of them, in a tone mixed with surprise and disappointment. The other boy took a look at the bottle cap. It had broken where it had been pierced, and thus it was no longer suitable to be used as a wheel. They share a laugh and one of them goes to get a new bottle cap. He comes back with a white one, which is easier to pierce.

They easily make a hole and fit it on the axle. Then they take 2 straws and cut the tips. Ten mins later, they have erected 4 supports on the chassis and are connecting their top with food sticks.

Minutes later, I noticed that they were trying to attach a launcher to their contraption. They looked at the design of a group who had built a launcher. The boys discussed where they can tie their launcher, glancing and pointing at the other group’s catapult.

While these two were building, something else was going on in the background. A loud buzz created as a result of students discussing is often present in LtP lessons. Audible through that buzz, Suraj and Sharmila were giving instructions and hints. This happened throughout the class. While the students were busy making, the teachers often announced what to do and what not to do. When not doing this, the teachers could be seen taking photos, asking students if they did their work, or reading the educator guide. They didn’t step back, observe the students, letting them work.

Later in the class, the boys had managed to attach the launcher. Suraj looked at their model, moved the launcher with his hands, and said that the launcher was loose and it wasn’t good. “Make a better one. This is no good,” he told them. He noticed the catapult’s unique design and expressed surprise that it has wheels to move on. He again moved to criticism soon after.

Sharmila went up to a group of girls and asked why they hadn’t built anything. She then asked if they had read the instructions given in the student guide. The girls nod. Sharmila then asked the names of materials students were using to make the catapult, such as bottle cap, food stick etc. “Ask if you don’t know,” she said and moved to another group.

The teachers seemed to give feedback without taking time to understand the students’ ideas. Suraj says to a group of girls to put the food sticks within straws to make their catapult look better. Their entire catapult was made of food sticks, and implementing his feedback required them to dismantle the whole thing.

A group of 2 girls, sitting at the corner of the class, had almost completed their model. Sharmila asked them some questions, given in the educator guide, on what was easy and difficult for them during the making. The girls replied that nothing was difficult, Sharmila told them that it’s not possible and asked them to think harder. She goes to the group of boys mentioned in the opening section of this article. She asked the same question. The boys told her that it was difficult for them to place straws on the top of the frame.

A group of boys seemed to have built their catapult. Suraj tried to give a demo using the catapult. One of its arms got dislodged as he picked it up. He exclaimed and asked the students to make it stronger. Sharmila then repeated the same instruction loudly for the entire class. She then went to the same group and told them to make their model better, stronger. In a curt and loud manner, she told them about the things that weren't working in their model.

Minutes later, they had added a sling arm for the launcher. It worked but the rubber band, attached for elasticity, distorted the frame. One of the boys held the base of the frame to counter the distortion.

Some time later I saw that those boys had discovered a new problem. A distortion in the frame was caused when they tied rubber bands to connect the base and the launcher. One of them disassembled the joint, slid the rubber around and re-taped it. His group member was working on his own model by then. Through hit-and-trial, the boy found a position where the distortion was minimum. He launched some paper balls and looked happy with the results.

Sharmila was constantly emphasizing that students read the student guide. She often asked students names of the materials. If they couldn’t answer, she concluded that they hadn't read the guide. We hadn’t designed the guide to be read like a textbook. It’s an open ended resource that students can refer to as they build their project. The two teachers constantly interrupting students to get them to read the guide didn’t help the students.

Two girls, who had made a good model and had been praised, were trying to attach a launcher arm. They looked at images in the guide and tried to use a rubber band. In another group, a boy used tape to attach the arm. This resulted in the arm being attached but it didn’t have the elastic effect like rubber bands. Both teachers interrupted and told him that it wasn’t the right way to do things. They asked him to look at the guide and make accordingly. The student didn’t get any time and space to test his model and see if the changes he made worked or not.

Towards the middle of the class, Suraj asked everyone to pause their work. It took repeated calls from him to get students to stop. Many students continued to work on their models seconds later. Suraj wanted to conduct a feedback segment. He made one group stand up, show their project, and asked the other students to say something that they liked about it. He asked them to say something about it that was better than in their model. The students weren't interested in feedback. They continued working on their models. They occasionally looked at the model when the teachers told them to, and gave one word answers like “yes” and “good.”

Most of the feedback and comments on the models came from the teachers. The students usually replied with yes or no to questions such as “Is this good?” There was much need for teachers to pause and step back so that the students can get time to think and collaborate. Because both teachers were loud and constantly speaking, it seemed to only hinder the students.

The groups were at different stages of making. Some had completed their models and were playing with it, shooting paper balls. Some were improving on their models based on the playing and testing experience. A few were still struggling to make their first model. Those stuck were studying the photos in the student guide and discussing ideas. In groups that had built one model, one of them improved on the existing one and the other student proceeded to build a new model.

Till the very end of the class, most students were engaged in making. They were building new models, improving, coloring the completed ones, playing with them, helping friends or completing their models. They seemed deeply engaged in their work.

LtP lessons are different from the conventional, curricular lessons. Teachers don’t need to feel the pressure to carry the class on their shoulders, like they often do in their regular classes. They can step back and watch the students play, only supporting and nudging when needed.