Content uploaded by Catherine M Bohn-Gettler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catherine M Bohn-Gettler on Jan 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
13
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005
The Role of Recess in Children’s Cognitive
Performance and School Adjustment
by Anthony D. Pellegrini and Catherine M. Bohn
However, a similar trend was observed in
a much more rigorously conducted survey
in England (Blatchford & Sumpner, 1998).
That survey’s nationally representative
random sample of primary and secondary
schools (1 in 10 of such schools in the
country) found uniform erosion of recess
time across a 5-year period (1990/1991–
1995/1996). Declines in recess periods
were reported in both primary schools
(56%) and secondary schools (44%).
It is important to note that recess, or
breaktime, as it is called in the United King-
dom, is rather uniformly implemented
there (Blatchford & Sumpner, 1998); in
the United States there is no such unifor-
mity (Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). In the
United Kingdom, schools have morning,
lunch (called “dinner”), and afternoon
breaks. Although British students across all
grades have breaks, the duration of the break
periods decreases with age: 93 minutes for
children in infant school (5 to 7 years of
age), 83 minutes for junior school (7–11
years of age), and 77 minutes for secondary
school students (11–16 years of age).
In the United States, the ways that recess
is defined and implemented vary tremen-
dously. Generally, individual schools de-
termine policy for recess. In fact, in 87%
of the schools that reported having recess,
different practices were observed within
the same district (Pellegrini, 2005). In
many cases, teachers within the same school
varied the time and duration of the recess
period; for example, in some cases it was 10
minutes, in others 20 minutes (Pellegrini,
2005). Furthermore, from the data avail-
able, we do not know the form that the re-
cess periods took (e.g., we do not know if
organized physical education was counted
as recess).
In short, whatever form recess takes, op-
portunities for recess are being minimized.
The momentum from this trend may be
The authors suggest that the recess period
serves a positive purpose in the primary
school curriculum, counter to the current
practice of minimizing recess in many schools
across North America and the United King-
dom. The authors’ position is embedded in
the larger debate about school accountabil-
ity; they argue that school policy should be
based on the best theory and empirical evi-
dence available. They support their argument
for the importance of recess with theory and
with experimental and longitudinal data show-
ing how recess breaks maximize children’s
cognitive performance and adjustment to
school.
T
he emphasis on accountability in
both preschool and primary school
education has increased over the
past 40 years, the legislation associated with
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
being perhaps the most visible and recent
example. Advocates of accountability sug-
gest—and rightly, we think—that educa-
tional practice should be based on empirical
evidence and that the scarce tax dollars we
have should be spent on those programs
that “work.” To that end, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education’s Institute of Education
Sciences has recently announced a grant
competition to evaluate educational pro-
grams that have been shown to be effective
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
The orientation toward accountability
has a number of implications. Perhaps most
broadly, schools are organizing schedules so
that instructional time is maximized and
noninstructional time, such as recess, is
minimized. This practice may follow from
the assumption that minimizing recess af-
fords more opportunities for instruction,
which should, therefore, maximize perfor-
mance. One of the specific, though less
discussed, implications of this stance in the
educational research literature (Pellegrini &
Smith, 1993; Jarrett & Maxwell, 2000) is
the current practice across North America
and the United Kingdom of minimizing or
eliminating children’s opportunities for
recess breaks during the school day and their
corresponding opportunities to interact
with their peers. This issue has been stud-
ied (e.g., Blatchford, 1998; Jambor, 1999),
but there are gaps in the educational liter-
ature, and those gaps have not escaped the
attention of the American and British print
media (e.g., The Economist, 2001).
Recess in the School Curriculum
The trend toward diminished recess time
has been corroborated by at least three sur-
veys. A national survey taken by the Na-
tional Association of Elementary School
Principals in 1989 found that 96% of the
surveyed school systems had one or two re-
cess periods per day (Pellegrini, 2005). An-
other national survey, conducted 10 years
later, found that only 70% of the kinder-
garten classrooms that were sampled had a
recess period (Pellegrini, 2005). Although
these surveys indicate a decline with time,
we should be cautious in interpreting the
trend, as the surveys were not exactly com-
parable (e.g., they sampled different units
and asked different questions), and the de-
tails of the methodology are not readily
transparent.
Research News
and Comment
The Research News and Comment section
publishes commentary and analyses on
trends, policies, utilization, and contro-
versies in educational research. Like the
articles and reviews in the Features and
Book Review sections of ER, this material
does not necessarily reflect the views of
AERA nor is it endorsed by the organization.
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
14
due to the fact that politicians and school
superintendents see this as a way in which
to “get tough on education.” Indeed, it has
been presented as commonsensical that
reducing recess time has a positive effect
on achievement, as argued by Benjamin
Canada, the former superintendent in At-
lanta, without empirical evidence to sup-
port the claim (“No Time for Play,” 2001).
Many educators recognize the centrality
of maximizing the efficient use of rela-
tively scarce classroom time; many also
advocate for the role of breaks between pe-
riods of intense work where children can
relax and interact with peers, with the
hope that they will return to their class-
rooms after their breaks to work with re-
newed interest (e.g., National Association
of Early Childhood Specialists in State De-
partments of Education, 2001; Toppino,
Kasserman, & Mracek, 1991). We argue
for common ground between the two po-
sitions, with particular reference to pri-
mary schools. Most basically, we agree
with the need for accountability, meaning
that educational practice and policy should
be based on the best available theory and
empirical evidence. Furthermore, educa-
tors have an obligation to present evidence
in support of their policies. To do other-
wise is to squander the trust and resources
of children, families, and taxpayers. From
this view, we present both theory (the cog-
nitive immaturity hypothesis) and data to
support the argument that what goes on
during the recess period is educational in
the traditional sense (i.e., it affects atten-
tion to classroom lessons, achievement test
performance, and adjustment to school).
Recess as Educational:
The Cognitive Immaturity
Hypothesis
One of the primary goals of schooling is
teaching children skills and strategies asso-
ciated with literacy, mathematics, and sci-
ence—each of which is typically measured
by some form of standardized achievement
test. We use the term “cognitive perfor-
mance” as an umbrella term to cover the
skills and strategies associated with school-
based learning. Correspondingly, positive
social and emotional development is crucial
to successful cognitive performance and ad-
justment to school (Coie & Dodge, 1998).
Theoretically, our view of recess in the
school curriculum is framed by the cogni-
tive immaturity hypothesis (e.g., Bjorklund
may require a greater change in activity or
stimulus materials before they experience a
release from interference (e.g., Bjorklund,
1978). It is important to note that in-
structional regimens, such as physical ed-
ucation, would not serve the same purpose
(Council on Physical Education for Chil-
dren, 2001).
The cognitive immaturity hypothesis
also attributes special importance to the
role of peer play during the early primary
grades (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000).
From this point of view, play is not an
imperfect version of adult behavior but,
rather, serves an important role in child-
hood (Bateson, in press). When children
engage in social play with their peers, for
example, they are often enacting roles and
behavior that are, at some level, not at-
tainable in real life (Fein, 1979; Vygotsky,
1967). For example, when boys engage in
forms of play fighting, they take turns being
the superhero. This is often accomplished
through “self-handicapping” and reciprocal
role taking, in which a bigger or stronger
boy allows his peer to assume a dominant
role. Children’s social skills increase in cor-
respondence with the frequency with which
they enact different and varied social roles
(Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). For example,
the sort of behavioral flexibility just de-
scribed is necessary for sustained peer inter-
action. In the process of these interactions,
individuals learn to take other children’s
perspectives, comprehend and produce so-
cial signals, and inhibit their aggression.
The social exchanges between peers that
typify most recess periods are especially
important to primary school children’s
cognitive performance and more general
adjustment to school. The skills and self
perceived competence associated with suc-
cessful peer relations are related to children’s
school success (Coie & Dodge, 1998), and
more general social competence (Waters &
Sroufe, 1983) may be due to a number of
processes. For example, the social-cognitive
demands associated with peer interactions,
such as perspective taking and using explicit
language, relate to more general cogni-
tive performance (Piaget, 1983) and class-
room achievement (Bjorklund & Pellegrini,
2000). Furthermore, the social-emotional
support provided by close peer relations,
such as friendships, helps young children
adjust to the stresses of early schooling
(Boyle, Marshall, & Robeson, 2003; Ladd,
Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996).
& Green, 1992). Traditional views of chil-
dren’s cognitive processing (e.g., Piaget,
1983) suggest that young children’s cog-
nition is an imperfect version of more ma-
ture adult processes. For example, young
children’s tendencies to make unrealistic
estimates of their own capabilities by over-
estimating their own cognitive (Yussen
& Levy, 1975) and social status (Smith
& Boulton, 1990) has been framed as a
limitation—something to be overcome.
The cognitive immaturity hypothesis sug-
gests that these processes are not inferior
variants of adult behavior but, instead,
specific adaptations to the niche of child-
hood that enable young children to effec-
tively learn skills and behavior. For
example, children’s overestimation of their
own cognitive and social skills enables
them to persevere at tasks even though, by
adult standards, they are not doing them
very well. This perseverance may lead to
self-perceived success, which may, in turn,
lead to higher self-perceived competence
and help the child in learning complicated
skills and strategies (Bandura, 1997).
With specific reference to the role of re-
cess, this position holds that playful, not
structured, breaks may be especially impor-
tant in maximizing performance because
unstructured breaks may reduce the cogni-
tive interference associated with immedi-
ately preceding instruction (e.g., Bjorklund
& Harnishfeger, 1990). The immaturity
of their nervous systems and their lack of
experience render children unable to per-
form higher-level cognitive tasks with the
same efficiency as older children and adults
and directly influences their educability.
From this logic, it follows that young chil-
dren are especially susceptible to the effects
of cognitive interference after sustained pe-
riods of structured work (see Dempster,
1992). Breaks during periods of sustained
cognitive work should reduce cognitive
interference and maximize learning and
achievement gains (Toppino et al., 1991).
Although one might predict that chang-
ing from one type of focused activity to an-
other would yield some cognitive benefit,
children (especially young children) may
experience a continued buildup of interfer-
ence with repeated performance of highly-
focused tasks, even if the tasks are different,
and thus experience greater benefit from a
drastic change in activity, such as is afforded
by unstructured recess. This is consistent
with the evidence that younger children
The Role of Recess in Cognitive
Performance: Proximal Measures
Anecdotal evidence from East Asia (Steven-
son & Lee, 1990) suggests that children’s
attention to class work is maximized when
instructional periods are relatively short
and followed by breaks. In most East Asian
primary schools, for example, children are
given a 10-minute break every 40 minutes
or so (Lila School, 2004); in middle school
they receive a 10-minute break every 45
minutes (Lila School, 2004, http://www.
had.ms.kr/doam201_4.html), and in high
school a 10-minute break every 50 min-
utes (Cyber School, 2004). When chil-
dren come back from these breaks, they
seem more attentive and ready to work
than before the breaks. As illustrated below,
American experimental evidence (Jarrett
et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993;
Pellegrini, Huberty, & Jones, 1995; Ridg-
way, Northup, Pellegrini, LaRue, & Hight-
shoe, 2003) supports these claims.
Attention to classroom tasks has been
used in many studies of proximal effects
of recess on cognitive performance (e.g.,
Jarrett et al., 1998; Ridgway et al., 2003).
Attention is a direct and relatively easy-to-
measure index of children’s motivation for,
and engagement in, their school work (e.g.,
Toppino et al., 1991). Attention to class-
room tasks, such as reading, in turn, is also
related to more general and distal indicators
of cognitive performance, such as reading
achievement (e.g., Rowe & Rowe, 1992).
To illustrate the role of recess on atten-
tion, we highlight the findings from a series
of field experiments conducted in a public
elementary school (Pellegrini & Smith,
1993; Pellegrini et al., 1995). Procedu-
rally, in all of these experiments we exper-
imentally manipulated recess timing, or
the time children spent doing seatwork be-
fore recess. On randomly assigned days,
they went out to recess at 10 a.m. (the
shorter timing period) or at 10:30 a.m. (the
longer timing period). Before and after re-
cess, children’s attention to classroom tasks
was coded. In three of the four experiments
(Pellegrini et al., 1995), we also experimen-
tally controlled the tasks on which children
worked before and after recess: Male- or
female-preferred books were read to the
children in counterbalanced order.
The results indicated in all experiments
that children were more attentive after than
before recess. Furthermore, children were
less attentive during the longer recess-
number of studies have demonstrated that,
when given free choice in an unstructured
environment, children who choose to in-
teract with peers more than with adults
are more sophisticated on specific social-
cognitive measures (e.g., less antisocial,
more popular with peers, better at perspec-
tive taking, higher-achieving academically)
(e.g., Harper & Huie, 1985). These find-
ings are consistent with Piagetian (1983)
theory suggesting that the disequilibration
characteristic of peer interaction facilitates
development, whereas the typically unilat-
eral interactions characteristic of adult-
child interaction are less facilitative. That
is, children are more likely to disagree with
each other than they are to disagree with
adults. When peers disagree, they are con-
fronted with points of view other than
their own and, if they want interaction to
continue, they must accommodate to their
peers’ points of view. These sorts of social
interaction often occur on playgrounds at
recess.
Our stress on the importance of peers,
relative to adults, in a play context does not
minimize the more general importance of
positive teacher-student relationships in
school (e.g., Davis, 2003) or the more gen-
eral importance of adult-child relationships
in children’s social development (Sroufe
et al., 1999). Indeed, we recognize the im-
portance of the continuity in children’s
peer relationships from adult-child relation-
ships (Sroufe et al., 1999). Our position is
that primary school children should be ap-
plying the earlier competence developed
with adults into the newer context of peer
relations. Unstructured peer interaction
affords opportunities to learn and develop
new social and cognitive skills.
Correspondingly, placing children in
such highly motivating but demanding sit-
uations (such as recess) is also important
from an assessment perspective. It may be
that the often-described difference between
children’s competence as measured in stan-
dardized testing situations and their com-
petence as measured in playful situations
(Cazden, 1975; Waters & Sroufe, 1983;
Vygotsky, 1967) is due to different levels
of motivation to exhibit competence. In
testing situations, youngsters may see little
reason to achieve, whereas in the more
playful situation children typically enjoy
interacting with peers and thus are moti-
vated to do the difficult social cognitive
work necessary to sustain peer interaction.
timing period than in the shorter period.
These results clearly supported Stevenson
and Lee’s (1990) supposition that children
are less attentive during long work periods.
Furthermore, in many cases, gender mod-
erated the effects of recess. Children were
more attentive to the same-gender books
than to the other-gender books, consistent
with the literature on gender preference
for stories (Monson & Sebesta, 1991). And
boys’ attention was especially sensitive to
recess timing: Boys were more likely than
girls to be inattentive in the longer recess-
timing condition.
In one of our experiments the recess pe-
riod was held indoors (Pellegrini et al.,
1995, Experiment 3). We chose that venue
because examining the effects of indoor re-
cess on children’s attention would provide
insight into the role of a relatively seden-
tary break period on subsequent attention.
By implication, the results should also
evaluate the “blowing off steam” hypothe-
sis. If children’s attention were greater
after than before the indoor break, the role
of physical activity per se would be mini-
mal. This is relevant to policy, as educators
sometimes use indoor recess as an alterna-
tive to outdoor breaks. The results from
this experiment replicated the findings
from the outdoor recess results: Children
were more attentive after recess than before.
In short, these experiments support the
idea that providing breaks over the course
of instruction facilitates children’s atten-
tion to classroom tasks; physical activity
did not seem to play an important role.
That these results were obtained through
well-controlled field experiments and repli-
cation across a number of studies instills
confidence in the findings.
The Role of Peer Interaction at
Recess in Predicting First-Grade
Achievement
Next, we explore the relations between the
peer interactions typical of children’s re-
cess behavior and traditional measures of
school achievement. We were guided in
this area by the notion that the compe-
tence used in social interaction with peers
is related to skills and strategies tapped by
more traditional measures of achievement.
Most broadly, we observed adult-directed
behavior (e.g., standing next to, talking
with) and peer-directed behavior (e.g., ball
games, joint playing with objects) and re-
lated them to measures of achievement. A
15
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
16
Our intent in this section is to show
that standardized achievement and apti-
tude measures, although important, have
limited explanatory and predictive power,
especially for young children (e.g., Davis,
2003; Wentzel, 1991). Instead, and like
Ziegler and Trickett (1978), we suggest
that children’s social competence with peers
is a powerful and complementary predic-
tor of school performance and adjustment.
These analyses, hopefully, will inform leg-
islators and state and federal departments
of education about a different view of chil-
dren and different ways of assessing them.
The 2-year longitudinal study presented
in this section was conducted in a public
elementary school catering to a wide vari-
ety of children (Pellegrini, 1992). Chil-
dren’s social interactions with peers and
adults were observed extensively across 2
years on the school playground at recess.
The Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT,
Nurss & McGauvran, 1976) was used to
assess the early reading and math concepts
of the kindergarten children. The measure
of academic achievement for first graders
was the Georgia Criterion–Referenced
Competency Test (CRCT), also a test of
general knowledge and early literacy and
numeracy concepts.
We demonstrated that kindergarteners’
playground social behavior was a signifi-
cant predictor of their first-grade academic
achievement, even after taking their kinder-
garten achievement into consideration
(R
2
= .75 for the whole model). Peer inter-
action was positively related to achievement;
adult-directed behavior was negatively re-
lated to achievement. These results, im-
portantly, showed that kindergarten MRT
status did indeed predict first-grade aca-
demic achievement (R
2
= .34). However,
and most important for our discussion of
the value of recess, the children’s behavior
at recess accounted for significant and
unique variance in first-grade achievement,
even with kindergarten achievement held
constant (R
2
= .41). Again, this finding
supports criticisms that standardized mea-
sures of children’s cognition have limited
predictive value (e.g., Ziegler & Trickett,
1978). Substantially more variance in
first-grade achievement is accounted for
when children’s behavior in a naturalistic
and motivating environment is consid-
ered. Correspondingly, and as Cronbach
(1971) suggested more than 30 years
ago, validity—in this case, predictive
& Sroufe, 1981). Successful mastery of
those tasks constitutes “social competence”
for that period, and they, in turn, provide
the foundation for subsequent skill devel-
opment and school success (Waters &
Sroufe, 1983). From this point of view,
mastering the skills necessary for member-
ship in the school peer group and feeling
competent in that area should provide a
basis for the successful interactions with
peers and teachers that are necessary for
adjustment to school.
Numerous longitudinal studies have
documented the importance of children’s
peer relations in their initial adjustment to
elementary school. For example, Ladd and
colleagues (Ladd et al., 1996; Ladd, Price,
& Hart, 1988) have shown that successful
transition from preschool to primary school
is fostered when children make the transi-
tion with a friend. Friends provide impor-
tant social-emotional support for each other
in the new and stressful environment of
primary school.
Relationships with peers and social skills
often develop in the context of social games
with peers, such as tag, soccer, and jump-
rope games. As Piaget (1962) argued,
games are a modal form of interaction for
primary school–age children. Our longitu-
dinal research (Pellegrini, Kato, Blatchford,
& Baines, 2002) has documented empiri-
cally the importance of games for children,
and especially boys, in entering and adjust-
ing to the first mandatory year of primary
school. In this work, inner-city Min-
neapolis first graders (in two schools) were
observed on their playgrounds at recess
and assessed on varying aspects of social
competence and adjustment to school. We
found that children, but especially boys,
used their facility with games (ball games,
chase, and jumping or singing games) as a
way to achieve and maintain social compe-
tence with their peers and adjust to very
early schooling (as assessed by self-report
and teacher ratings). Game facility was
measured by aggregating teacher ratings,
peer nominations, and observations of
time spent in games and levels of game so-
phistication. Game facility predicted unique
and significant variance in children’s end-
of-year social competence (measured by
teacher rating scales and peer nominations
of popularity), beyond that predicted by
beginning-of-year social competence (R
2
=
.56). Similarly, game facility predicted
unique and significant variance in end-of-
validity—increases when we use more than
one measure. This clearly speaks against the
current common practice of using only
one measure to make inferences about
children’s performance. On the other hand,
kindergarten children’s test performance
should not be totally disregarded; it ac-
counted for a statistically significant portion
of the variance in children’s first-grade
achievement. Thus “throwing the baby
out with the bath water” would limit our
understanding of a very complex phenom-
enon: school achievement.
Certainly more research is needed to
document the differential roles of peers and
adults in young children’s social and cogni-
tive development. For example, in free-play
situations, adults generally inhibit older
preschool children’s exhibition of complex
forms of play, whereas peers facilitate it
(e.g., Dickinson & Moreton, 1994). How-
ever, in a small-group teaching context,
such as planning an errand or a classifica-
tion task, adults are much more effective
than peers as tutors (Tudge & Rogoff,
1989). Furthermore, these findings do not
discount the importance of positive teacher-
child relationships (Davis, 2003). For ex-
ample, attachment theorists have argued
that the attachment relationship between
mother and child provides the base from
which children establish peer and adult re-
lationships (Sroufe et al., 1999).
Peer Interaction as
the Fourth “R”
Another dimension of our argument re-
lates more specifically to the importance of
peer interaction for primary school chil-
dren’s adjustment to school. In the pre-
ceding study, the reported observations
of playground behavior were admittedly
global. They told us only about the rela-
tive value of peer and adult interaction.
The province of British Columbia has
recently recognized the importance of peer
interaction to children’s school adjustment
by labeling social responsibility a “founda-
tional skill” in schools, equivalent to a
fourth “R” (British Columbia Perfor-
mance Standards, 2000; we acknowledge
Shelley Hymel, at the University of British
Columbia, for this information). The abil-
ities to interact cooperatively with peers,
inhibit antisocial behavior, and form close
relationships, such as friendships, are im-
portant developmental tasks for children
as they first enter primary school (Waters
the-year adjustment, beyond beginning-of-
year adjustment (R
2
= .14). These findings
are consistent with results showing the re-
ciprocal effects of peer relations and success
in early schooling (Coie & Dodge, 1998).
These results also extend earlier work
on peer relationships and adjustment to
school (e.g., Ladd et al., 1988) to the ex-
tent that the majority of the students in
our study were low-income children; 75%
of our children were on free or reduced-
price lunch, and Spanish was the first lan-
guage for 40% of the children. It is well
known that children, and especially boys,
from economically disadvantaged groups
have difficulty adjusting to and succeed-
ing in school (e.g., Heath, 1983). We
demonstrated that their success in one
part of the first-grade school day (games at
recess) could predict more general school
adjustment.
Future research should examine the ex-
tent to which aspects of game facility, such
as peer leadership in games, predicts school
adjustment in later grades, when the niches
of the playground and the classroom are less
isomorphic (i.e., solitary academic work
replaces more socially interactive instruc-
tional modes).
Conclusion: Policy Implications
The experimental and longitudinal data
presented in this article, grounded in de-
velopmental theory, provide strong sup-
port for the role of recess in the primary
school curriculum. In terms of specific
classroom performance, our work supports
the anecdotal evidence from Asian schools,
where children are given frequent breaks
across the school day. These data also
align with the cognitive immaturity hy-
pothesis. Unstructured breaks from de-
manding cognitive tasks seem to facilitate
school learning, as well as more general so-
cial competence and adjustment to school.
The evidence presented also implicated
the gender preference of classroom tasks in
children’s attention to those tasks. Gender
preference is clearly an important modera-
tor of performance for educators to consider
as they make inferences about classifying
children, especially in terms of learning
disabilities (Pellegrini & Horvat, 1995). For
example, most children with attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are
boys, and they are especially vulnerable to
the deleterious effects of prolonged peri-
ods of concentrated work without a break
(Ridway et al., 2003). Under less struc-
tured regimens, some of the same boys may
not be diagnosed as ADHD.
In conclusion, the research presented in
this article attempted to contextualize the
recess period within a larger policy debate
on the uses of instructional time and school
performance. Schools’ policy on recess
should be evaluated in light of the data
presented here. It is common for schools
and politicians to extol Asian educational
practices; they should also consider Asian
recess practices in the context of an ex-
tended school day and school year. For ex-
ample, extending the American school day
and school year, with more frequent recess
periods, might positively affect children’s
cognitive performance and social compe-
tence, while simultaneously providing par-
ents with badly needed child care for more
extended periods.
The finding that children’s social com-
petence develops in the context of interact-
ing with their peers is especially important
in light of the fact that children are rapidly
losing opportunities to interact with peers.
There are signs in both the United States
and the United Kingdom that children of
primary school age have fewer opportuni-
ties out of school for interacting freely
with peers and, thus, developing social skills
and competence (Blatchford, 1998). For
example, many American children enter
empty homes after school, waiting for their
parent(s) to return from work (Steinberg,
1986). With the trends in both the US
(Pellegrini, 2005) and in the UK (Blatch-
ford, 1998; Blatchford & Sumpner, 1998)
for limiting recess time, we may be losing
one of the few times during the day when
children have the opportunity to interact
with peers and develop social skills.
Finally, the value of recess for children’s
physical health, although beyond the scope
of this article, is also worth considering.
American children are overweight (De-
Angelis, 2004; Rich, 2004). Indeed, the
problem of childhood obesity has been
called an epidemic. That state of affairs is
the result of a combination of factors, in-
cluding bad diet and lack of exercise.
Children are especially sedentary during
the typical school day (Simons-Morton,
O’Hara, Parcel, Huang, Baranowski, &
Wilson, 1990). Opportunities for recess in
spacious settings equipped with apparatus
to encourage exercise—basketball hoops,
four-square grids, balls, and so forth (Boyle
17
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005
et al., 2003)—would help to moderate chil-
dren’s weight problems. It would especially
help if recess were paired with participation-
oriented sport (in contrast to sports where
only the “best make the team”). It may be
that merely providing opportunities for
children to engage in free play could lessen
the ill effects of their sedentary life in school.
NOTE
This work was supported, in part, by the
Spencer Foundation and the Center for Early
Education and Development at the University
of Minnesota. We also acknowledge the com-
ments of P. A. Schutz, S. L. Lanehart, and
anonymous reviewers, as well as numerous
conversations on the topic with D. Bjorklund,
P. Blatchford, and P. K. Smith.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barbour, A. C. (1996). Physical competence and
peer relations in second graders: Qualitative
case studies from recess play. Journal of Re-
search in Childhood Education, 11, 35–46.
Bateson, P. P. B. (in press). The role of play in
the evolution of great apes and humans. In
A. D. Pellegrini & P. K. Smith (Eds.), The
nature of play: Great apes and humans. New
York: Guilford.
Bjorklund, D. F. (1978). Negative transfer in
children’s recall of categorized material. Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26,
299–307.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Green, B. L. (1992). The
adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity.
American Psychologist, 47, 46–54.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Harnishfeger, K. K. (1987).
Developmental differences in the mental ef-
fort requirements for the use of an organi-
zational strategy in free recall. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 44, 109–125.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2000).
Child development and evolutionary psy-
chology. Child Development, 71, 1687–1708.
Blatchford, P. (1998). Social life in school. Lon-
don: Falmer.
Blatchford, P., & Sumpner, C. (1998). What
do we know about break time? Results from
a national survey of break time and lunch
time in primary and secondary schools.
British Educational Research Journal, 24,
79–94.
Boyle, D. E., Marshall, N. L., & Robeson,
W. W. (2003). Gender at play: Fourth-grade
girls and boys on the playground. American
Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1326–1345.
British Columbia Performance Standards: So-
cial responsibility. (2000). Retrieved No-
vember 11, 2004, from website of British
Columbia Ministry of Education, http://
www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/sintro.pdf
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
18
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth
to adulthood. New York: Academic Press.
Cazden, C. B. (1975). Hypercorrection in test
responses. Theory Into Practice, 13, 343–346.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression
and antisocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Manual of child psychology: Vol. 3. So-
cial, emotional, and personality development
(pp. 779–862). New York: Wiley.
Council on Physical Education for Children.
(2001). Recess in elementary schools. A posi-
tion paper from the National Association for
Sport and Physical Education. Retrieved
September 28, 2000, from http://eric.ed.
uiuc.edu/naecs/position/recessplay/html
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Validity. In R. L.
Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement
(pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Cyber School. (2004). Retrieved September
28, 2004, from http://.bokwang.hs.kr/life/
%C0%CF%B0%FA%BD%C3%C1%A4
%C7%A5.htm (information presented in
Korean only)
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role
and influence of student-teacher relationships
on children’s social and cognitive develop-
ment. Educational Psychologist, 38, 207–234.
DeAngelis, T. (2004). What’s to blame for the
surge in super-sized Americans? Monitor on
Psychology, 35(1), 44–49.
Dempster, F. N. (1992). The rise and fall of
the inhibitory mechanism: Toward a unified
theory of cognitive development and aging.
Development Review, 12, 45–75.
Dickinson, D., & Moreton, J. (1991). Predict-
ing specific kindergarten literacy skills from
three-year-olds’ preschool experience. Paper pre-
sented at the biennial meetings of the Soci-
ety for Research in Child Development,
Seattle.
Fein, G. (1979). Echoes from the nursery:
Piaget, Vygotsky, and the relationship be-
tween language and play. In E. Winner &
H. Gardner (Eds.), Fact, fiction, and fantasy
in childhood (pp. 1–17). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Harper, L., & Huie, K. (1985). The effects of
prior group experience, age, and familiarity
on the quality and organizational of pre-
schoolers’ social relations. Child Develop-
ment, 56, 704–717.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Jambor, Tom. (1999). Recess and social devel-
opment. Available at website of the Excelli-
gence Learning Corporation, http://www.
earlychildhood.com/Articles/index.cfm?Fuse-
Action=Article&A=39
Jarrett, O. S., & Maxwell, D. M. (2000). What
research says about the need for recess. In
R. Clements (Ed.), Elementary school recess:
Selected readings, games, and activities for teach-
a neglected aspect of play. Child Develop-
ment, 69, 577–598.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral development of the
child. New York: Free Press.
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget’s theory. In W. Kessen
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: History,
theory, and methods (pp. 103–128). New
York: Wiley.
Rich, L. E. (2004). Bringing more effective
tools to the weight-loss table. Monitor on
Psychology, 4(1), 52–55.
Ridgway, A., Northup, J., Pellegrin, A., &
Hightshoe, A. (2003). Effects of recess on
the classroom behavior of children with and
without attention-deficit hyperactivity disor-
der. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 253–268.
Rowe, K. J., & Rowe, K. S. (1992). The rela-
tionships between inattentiveness in the
classroom and reading achievement (Part B):
An exploratory study. Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychi-
atry, 31, 357–368.
Simons-Morton, B.G., O’Hara, N. M., Parcel,
G. S., Huang, I. W., Baranowski, T., &
Wilson, B. (1990). Children’s frequency of
participation in moderate to vigorous phys-
ical activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 61, 307–314.
Smith, P. K., & Boulton, M. (1990). Rough-
and-tumble play, aggression, and dominance:
Perception and behavior in children’s en-
counters. Human Development, 33, 271–282.
Sroufe, L. A., Egelund, B., & Carlson, E. A.
(1999). One social world: The integrated
development of parent-child and peer rela-
tionships. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen
(Eds.), Relationships as developmental con-
texts: The Minnesota symposia on child psy-
chology (Vol. 30, pp. 241–261). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinberg, L. (1986). Latchkey children and
susceptibility to peer pressure. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 22, 433–439.
Stevenson, H. W., & Lee, S. Y. (1990). Con-
cepts of achievement. Monographs for the
Society for Research in Child Development
(Serial No. 221), 55(1–2).
Toppino, T. C., Kasserman, J. E., & Mracek,
W. A. (1991). The effect of spacing repeti-
tions on the recognition memory of young
children and adults. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 51, 123–138.
Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influ-
ences on cognitive development: Piagetian
and Vygotskian perspectives. In M. Bornstein
& J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human
development (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute for
Education Sciences. (2004). Applicant In-
formation: Current applications. Retrieved
September 28, 2004, from http://www.ed.
gov/programs/edresearch/applicant.html
ers and parents (pp. 12–23). Lake Charles, LA:
American Press.
Jarrett, O. S., Maxwell, D. M., Dickerson, C.,
Hoge, P., Davies, G., & Yetley, A. (1998).
Impact of recess on classroom behavior:
Group effects and individual differences.
Journal of Educational Research, 92, 121–126.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman,
C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predic-
tor of young children’s early school adjust-
ment, Child Development, 67, 1103–1118.
Ladd, G., Price, J., & Hart, L. (1988). Predict-
ing preschoolers’ peer status from their play-
ground behavior. Child Development, 59,
986–992.
Lila School. (2004). Retrieved September 28,
2004, from http://www.lila.es.kr/schedule.
htm (information provided in Korean only).
Monson, D., & Sebesta, S. (1991). Reading
preferences. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp,
& J. Squire (Eds.). Handbook of research on
teaching the English language arts (pp.
664–673). New York: Macmillan.
National Association of Early Childhood Spe-
cialists in State Departments of Education.
(2001). Recess and the importance of play:
A position statement on young children and re-
cess. Denver, CO: Author.
No time for play. (June 16, 2001). The Econo-
mist, p. 35. Retrieved June 18, 2001, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/edresearch/
applicant.html
Nurss, J., & McGauvran, M. (1976). Metro-
politan Readiness Tests: Levels I and II Test
and Teacher’s Manual. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1992). Kindergarten chil-
dren’s social cognitive status as a predicotr of
first grade success. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 7, 565–577.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2005). Recess: Its role in educa-
tion and development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Horvat, M. (1995). A de-
velopmental contextual critique of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Ed-
ucational Researcher, 24, 13–20.
Pellegrini, A. D., Huberty, P. D., & Jones, I.
(1995). The effects of recess timing on chil-
dren’s classroom and playground behavior.
American Educational Research Journal, 32,
845–864.
Pellegrini, A. D., Kato, K., Blatchford, P., &
Baines, E. (2002). A short-term longitudinal
study of children’s playground games across
the first year of school: Implications for so-
cial competence and adjustment to school.
American Educational Research Journal, 39,
991–1015.
Pellegrini, A., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School
recess. Review of Educational Research, 63,
51–67.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Phys-
ical activity play: The nature and function of
19
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005
Vygotsky, L. (1967). Play and its role in the
mental development of the child. Soviet Psy-
chology, 12, 62–76.
Waters, J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social com-
petence as a developmental construct. De-
velopmental Review, 3, 79–97.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at
school: Relations between social responsibil-
ity and academic achievement. Review of
Educational Research, 61, 1–24.
Yussen, S. R., & Levy, V. M., Jr. (1975).
Developmental changes in predicting one’s
own span of short-term memory. Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19,
502–508.
CATHERINE M. BOHN is a doctoral student
in Educational Psychology at the University of
Minnesota, 206 Burton Hall, 178 Pillsbury
Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455;
bohn0066@umn.edu. Her research interests
include cognitive and social development,
reading, and literacy.
Manuscript received July 9, 2004
Revisions received November 13, 2004
Accepted November 22, 2004
Zigler, E., & Trickett, P. (1978). I.Q., social
competence, and evaluation of early child-
hood intervention programs. American Psy-
chologist, 33, 789–798.
AUTHORS
ANTHONY D. PELLEGRINI is a Professor of
Psychological Foundations of Education in the
Department of Educational Psychology at the
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus,
214 Burton Hall, 178 Pillsbury Drive SE,
Minneapolis, MN 55455; pelle013@umn.edu.
His research and teaching interests include di-
rect observational methods, children’s develop-
ment, play, and aggression.
