All Work and No Play Makes an Adult a Dull Learner

Abstract

In educational contexts, the attributes of play and fun should be taken into consideration program design and content delivery, as these attributes can stimulate better learning results. This article proposes that playing with ideas and maintaining a playful attitude while constructing knowledge should be encouraged in adult classrooms. We begin with a review of the necessity of play for adult learners from the perspective of psychology. Then, we examine the relationship among creativity, imagination, and play. Finally, we look at the concept of play as it exists in practice in the adult classroom, and discuss its implications for adult educators.

Full text

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
184
All Work and No Play Makes an Adult a Dull Learner
Kuan Chen Tsai
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, City University of Macau
81-121 Av. Xian Xing Hai, Golden Dragon Centre, 19 Andares, Macau
E-mail: tsaikuanchen@cityu.edu.mo
Received: December 7, 2014 Accepted: December 18, 2014 Published: January x, 2015
doi:10.5296/jet.v2i1.6979 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jet.v2i1.6979
Abstract
In educational contexts, the attributes of play and fun should be taken into consideration
program design and content delivery, as these attributes can stimulate better learning results.
This article proposes that playing with ideas and maintaining a playful attitude while
constructing knowledge should be encouraged in adult classrooms. We begin with a review of
the necessity of play for adult learners from the perspective of psychology. Then, we examine
the relationship among creativity, imagination, and play. Finally, we look at the concept of play
as it exists in practice in the adult classroom, and discuss its implications for adult educators.
Keywords: Play, Adult learning, Adult education
1. Introduction
The characteristics of flexibility in creative people has been well documented in the
personality literature (Barron & Harrington, 1981). According to data from Csikszentmihaly’s
(1996) interviews with nearly 100 luminaries across varied fields, the salient traits of mature
creatives include playfulness and naïvete, particularly. When it comes to coping with
obstacles to their creative achievements. It is widely believed that a central element of
creativity is flexible thinking (Feist, 1998; Meneely & Portillo, 2005), which allows creative
people to play with different ideas on the way to a better solution. In this sense, the concept
of play seems to function as a mediating variable between an individual’s emotion and his/her
creative performance.
Rubenson and Runco (1992) propose a psychoeconomic theory of creativity and focus on the
problem of loss of creativity in older adults. They explain that people over 50 have invested
large amounts of time and resources in formulating their routines and personal paradigms,
and thus become less flexible when facing new challenges, especially ones susceptible to
creative solutions. This lack of flexible ideation might also contribute to rigid attitudes
toward the potential benefits of creative solutions. Runco (2009) has also voiced a concern

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
185
that older adults might protect their investments, i.e., tend to be unwilling to consider
alternatives as frequently as they did when they were younger.
In educational contexts, the attributes of play and fun should be taken into consideration
program design and content delivery, as these attributes can stimulate better learning results.
Cognition and affect are both important to the learning process. If learning is enjoyable, the
construction of knowledge can be more effective and lead to better results. Play could also
motivate adult learners to seek intellectual challenges and to continue to do so, which is the
true meaning of lifelong learning. It is believed that the major trait of adult learners is
self-directed inquiry, which has thus become a boldfaced term in the lexicon of the adult
educator (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Dirkx (1998) recognizes the
importance to transformative learning of imagination and fantasy, which help adult learners
understand the world around them. Following this line of thought, play could serve as
important impetus toward the development of fantasy and imagination. Thus, from the
perspective of meaning-making processes, embedding play into adult-learning curricula may
not only boosts the magnitude of self-directed inquiry, but also render the learning journey
more colorful and rich.
Dansky (1999) defined play as an activity is playful to the extent that it is “intrinsically
motivated and self-directed” (p. 393). Cecil et al. (1985) defined play as creative activity that
can be “conceptualized as the medium which illustrates the presence of the curious, exploratory
and creative states” (p. 205). Dansky and Silverman (1973) remarked that “play involves a
relaxation of efforts to adapt to reality” (p. 38), proposition similar to Piaget’s (1962): that most
play is behavior characterized by a predominance of assimilation over accommodation.
This article proposes that playing with ideas and maintaining a playful attitude while
constructing knowledge should be encouraged in adult classrooms. Because it can encourage
adult learners to explore new possibilities, the idea of play becomes an important facilitator of
the learning process as a whole. On the one hand, play is closely related to creativity and
imagination; on the other, it is speculated that play can enhance learning outcomes. We begin
with a review of the necessity of play for adult learners from the perspective of psychology.
Then, we examine the relationship among creativity, imagination, and play. Finally, we look at
the concept of play as it exists in practice in the adult classroom, and discuss its implications
for adult educators.
2. Why Do Adult Learners Need Play?
Herrmann (1990) proposed the brain dominance model, which consists of four different
modes of thinking: analytical, sequential, interpersonal, and imaginative. This represents a
refinement of left brain-right brain research, which suggested that the left hemisphere of the
human brain processes thought in a linear, logical, and verbal manner, whereas the right one
is characterized by the use of intuition, imagination, and visual hints. The four brain
quadrants depicted by the Herrmann Whole Brain Model are intended to allow individuals to
understand their thinking styles and learning preferences.

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
186
In the literature on learning styles, another influential model is Kolb’s Learning Style (Kolb,
1984), which involves two levels: a four-stage cycle of leaning (concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation) and four
separate learning styles (diverging, assimilating, converging, and accommodating). It is easier
to interpret Kolb’s learning styles via a two-by-two matrix, in which each learning cycle is
seen as a combination of two preferred styles. The theory holds that a better fit between a
given situation and a individual’s learning-style preferences will optimize that person’s
learning outcomes.
Both of the models discussed above carry important implications for educators. From the
perspective of learners’ internal cognitive processes, everyone is unique and has unique needs
vis-à-vis the development of the most appropriate learning opportunities. As such, educators
should recognize the importance of designing and implementing activities that offer each
learner a better chance of becoming personally engaged.
Ideally, activities and materials should be delivered in a manner that suits students’ varying
needs and abilities as modeled by Kolb (1984) and Herrmann (1990). In other words, the
logical and sequential approach to processing information should not dominate the classroom;
rather, alternative approaches rooted in intuition and imagination should also be introduced,
to fit the learning preferences among students. As such, it is possible to argue for the
legitimate position of play in adult classrooms in two ways. First, play is an important
facilitator of the exercise of right-brain activities, which are less linear, less logical, and less
reality-based, and indeed, can be said to require a more fantasy-oriented style of information.
In certain circumstances, therefore, play could be the best strategy by which to materialize
knowledge. The second argument in favor of play in the adult classroom is rooted in the close
relationship between play and creativity. The development of creative thinking is beneficial
for adults’ learning, and especially so for lifelong learning (Goff, 1993; Su, 2009; van der
Veen, 2006); to the extent that play helps adults to cultivate their preferences for creative and
flexible thinking, it should improve their learning outcomes.
The American Psychological Association (1993) has proposed a framework for developing
curricula that encourage learner-centered learning. Focusing on a holistic view of real-world
learning contexts, it highlights four categories of factors that affect learners and learning:
cognitive and metacognitive, motivational and affective, developmental and social, and
individual-difference. It is seems that positive emotion could boost students’ learning and
reinforce the learning process. In terms of the effects of play in adult-learning contexts, positive
emotions and flexible thinking are the expected results. Educators should seriously consider
promoting motivation via strategies that enhance purposeful learning, and take individual
differences into account, especially regarding learning performance. Assessment provides
valuable information and feedback for the selection of instructional materials and designs,
which in turn can be tuned to an optimal degree in terms of progress toward learning goals.
3. Creativity and Play
Many scholars believe that play is key to children’s development of cognitive, affective, and
physical behaviors (Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey, 1999). The majority of play research has

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
187
been concentrated in the early-childhood literature, perhaps because the concepts of play,
imagination, and creativity are strongly associated with children’s free exploration and
discovery of the world around them (Feldhusen & Hobson, 1972; Klinger, 1969; Singer &
Rummo, 1973). It seems hard to disagree with Lieberman’s (1965) dictum, that “playfulness
implies freedom, spontaneity, and joy; so does divergent thinking” (p. 223).
Piaget (1962) suggested several characteristics of play that differentiate it from work. First,
play is an end in itself, whereas work and other non-ludic behavior involve an aim not
contained in the activity as such. Second, play is spontaneous, not compulsory. Third, play is
undertaken for pleasure, while serious activity is directed towards a useful result irrespective of
its pleasurable character. Fourth, play is considered to be devoid of organized structure, in
contrast to serious thought, which is always ordered. Fifth, play is free from conflicts, whereas
serious activity has to grapple with conflicts that are inescapable. And lastly play begins when
incentives not contained in the initial action are included, and additional incentives would be
characteristic of all play (pp. 147-150).
This is not to suggest, however, that all play is alike. Johnson et al. (1999) define games with
rules, educational toys, and book-reading as cognitive play, while arts and crafts, microworlds
and narratives, and musical expression are creative play (pp. 85-87); Piaget (1962)
distinguished “symbolic play” from “practice play,” noting that the former is to use objects to
represent other objects as play, while the latter “as representational intelligence is to
sensory-motor intelligence” (p. 163). Saracho (1992) argued that fantasy—play children’s
make-believe activity— is “associated with their concentration on and enjoyment of play
situations” (p. 37). And, Russ and Kaugars (2000) state that “pretend play is play that involves
the use of fantasy and symbolism” (p. 211). Despite these definitional and typological
differences, however, all kinds of play, in essence, reflect the wellsprings of the creative
imagination, fun and freedom; and that is why all children and even adults need play time to
create a sandbox for trial and error.
Russ and her colleagues (Moore & Russ, 2008; Pearson, Russ, & Spannagel, 2008; Russ, 1993,
1998, 2003a; Russ & Grossman-Mckee, 1990) assert that the main reason for the tight link
between play and creativity is that play fosters the development of cognitive and affective
processes that are required for creative performance. In the dimension of cognition, play
behaviors stimulate processes that involve fluency, as well as divergent thinking: the sine qua
non of creative thinking. In terms of affect, play stimulates affective pleasure in the face of
challenges and in problem solving, and this becomes an important motivator for creative
achievement. Affect itself has also been found to facilitate divergent thinking by reinforcing its
magnitude. More specifically, as Russ (2003b) puts it,
in the affective realm, affective states (positive and negative), affective ideation and
primary process thinking, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, conflict resolution, and
sublimation are a few of the affective processes that have been identified as
important in the creative process (p. 143).
Russ (1993) follows the proposed cognitive-affective model of creativity that attempts to
bridge primary and secondary thought processes, which are derived from Freud’s proposition,

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
188
that imagination, intuition, and emotion are located in the primary process of thinking, and
logic, rules, and cognition are seated in the secondary process.
4. The Practice of Play in Adult Learning
The American Creativity Association’s website provides a handful of exercises that promote
creativity. The “Games” section in particular recommends several activities for educators
(http://www.amcreativityassoc.org/page-1421207). These can be seen as useful play activities
for adult learners. VanGundy (2005) likewise provides several game-like activities for the
teaching of creativity, which could also be treated as play activities under the definitions
provided in the previous section.
A number of studies have revealed that mind-mapping is effective in enhancing students’
thinking skills and creativity (Keles, 2012; Wang, Lee, Chu, 2010; Zampetakis, Tsironis, &
Moustakis, 2006). It was developed by T. Buzan (1974) as a learning tool for maximizing
brain potential in radiant thinking. Its primary feature is the connection of concepts with one
another by utilizing images, characters, numbers, rhythm, colors, lines, and symbols. It aims to
provide a free imaginary space in which to visualize associated thoughts, and then to integrate
this information to form a map for the brain (T. Buzan & B. Buzan, 1996). In short,
mind-mapping is a useful and handy tool that allows adult learners to construct divergent
thinking in the brain via pictorializing key concepts.
Although the majority of play literature focuses on pre-school children, play activities
discussed in this literature (and commonly found in the classroom) such as collage, clay
modeling and other art-making activities, building blocks, and treasure hunts could to some
extent be transformed into activities that fit adult-learning contexts. The key to doing so rests
with adult educators, who would need to take the lead in designing context appropriate
activities that deliberately employ such techniques. A certain level of physical exercise that
could trigger playful moods would be welcome in adult learning: in fact, somatic and
embodied learning are seen in the adult-learning literature as powerful ways of knowing that
engage the body as a site of learning (Merriam et al., 2007). As Freiler (2008, p.45) notes,
“learning occurs in social contexts and bodies, not just in minds.” A play activity, if designed
to encourage direct engagement in individual bodily experience, could help adult learners to
broaden their perspectives, and therefore their learning experience.
Several possible practices flow from the preceding discussion. First, play activity is
especially suitable for collaborative learning via teamwork. Educators should design play
activities that require each team member to engage in the task. Second, an effective educator
should build a positive, safe, and playful learning environment and encourage adult learners
to experiment in and with their learning processes. In such an environment, learners have
more freedom to express themselves than they are given in traditional classroom settings.
However, a playful environment does not absolve instructors of their responsibility to uphold
the quality of learning, by providing sufficient support, direction, and guidelines. Finally, the
design of learning should be authentic, i.e., attempt to echo real-life experiences rather than
abstract instructional sequences. As a group, adult learners tend to be concerned with the
relationship between what they are learning and how to apply it in their day-to-day life and

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
189
work. As such, when designing play activities, educators should always consider this linkage
to adults’ experiences. Case-based play that is anchored in real-world events and issues is
more likely to provide them with meaningful and authentic knowledge.
5. Conclusions
Understanding the nature and potential significance of play in the adult learning process can
provide educators with a rationale for selecting appropriate educational methods, which in turn
delimits adult learning. As Anderson (1994) wrote, “play is a safe harbor for the soul, because it
is a separate reality in which meaning is inverted” (p. 82); thus, adult educators should reconsider
the benefits of play for adult learning, which include cognitive, affective, and physical ways of
constructing knowledge. Although research on play has thus far mainly been confined to studies
of children, it is believed that the extension of this concept to older people could facilitate their
creative performance, which in turn could optimize their learning success.
References
American Psychology Association. (1997). Learner-Centered psychological principles: A
framework for school reform & redesign. Washington, DC: Center for Psychology in Schools
and Education.
Anderson, J. V. (1994). Creativity and play: A systematic approach to managing innovation.
Business Horizons, 37(2), 80-85.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual
Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439-476.
Buzan, T. (1974). Use your head. London: BBC Books.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1996). The Mind Map Book. London: BBC Books.
Cecil, L. M., Gray, M. M., Thornburg, K. R., & Ispa, J. (1985).
Curiosity-exploration-play-creativity: The early childhood mosaic. Early Child Development
and Care, 19(3), 199-217.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Dansky, J. L. (1999). Play. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(pp. 393-408). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dansky, J. L., & Silverman, I. W. (1973). Effects of play on associative fluency in
preschool-aged children. Developmental Psychology, 9(1), 38-43.
Dirkx, J. M. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An
overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7(1), 1–14.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Hobson, S. K. (1972). Freedom and play: Catalysts for creativity. The
Elementary School Journal, 73(3), 148-155.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
190
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.
Freiler, T. J. (2008). Learning through the body. New Directions for Adult and Counting
Education, 119, 37-47.
Goff, K. (1993). Creativity and life satisfaction of older adults. Educational Gerontology,
19(3), 241-250.
Herrmann, N. (1990). The creative brain. Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books.
Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (1999). Play and early childhood development.
New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Keles, O. (2012). Elementary teachers’ views on mind mapping. International Journal of
Education, 4(1), 93-100.
Klinger, E. (1969). Development of imaginative behavior: Implications of play for a theory of
fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 72(4), 277-298.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lieberman, J. N. (1965). Playfulness and divergent thinking: An investigation of their
relationship at the kindergarten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 107(1), 219-224.
Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality,
cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2-3), 155–166.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M., & Russ, S. W. (2008). Follow-up of a pretend play intervention: Effects on play,
creativity, and emotional processes in children. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 427-436.
Pearson, B. L., Russ, S. W., & Spannagel, S. (2008). Pretend play and positive psychology:
Natural companions. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 110-119.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imagination in childhood. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1992). The psychoeconomic approach to creativity. New
Ideas in Psychology, 10(1), 131-147.
Runco, M. A. (2009). Simplifying theories of creativity and revisiting the criterion problem:
A comment on Simonton’s (2009) hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition,
development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 462-465.
Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russ, S. W. (1998). Play, creativity, and adaptive functioning: Implications for play
interventions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 469-480.

Journal of Education and Training
ISSN 2330-9709
2015, Vol. 2, No. 1
www.macrothink.org/jet
191
Russ, S. W. (2003a). Play and creativity: Developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 47(3), 291-304.
Russ, S. W. (2003b). Creativity research: Whither thou goest. Creativity Research Journal,
15(2/3), 143-145.
Russ, S. W., & Grossman-Mckee, A. (1990). Affective expression in children’s fantasy play,
primary process thinking on rorschach, and divergent thinking. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 54(3&4), 756-771.
Russ, S. W., & Kaugars, A. (2000). Emotion in children’s play and creative problem solving.
Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 211-219.
Saracho, O. N. (1992). Preschool children’s cognitive style and play: Implications for
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 35-47.
Singer, D. V., & Rummo, J. (1973). Ideational creativity and behavioral style in kindergarten
age children. Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 154-161.
Su, Y. H. (2009). Idea creation: The need to develop creativity in lifelong learning practices.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(6), 705-717.
van der Veen, R. (2006). Communication and creativity: Methodological shifts in adult
education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(3), 231-240.
VanGundy, A. (2005). 101 activities for teaching creativity and problem solving. San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Wang, W.-C., Lee, Y.-C., Chu, Y.-C. (2010). A brief review on developing creative thinking
in young children by mind mapping. International Business Research, 3(3), 233-238.
Zampetakis, L. A., Tsironis, L., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Creativity development in
engineering education: The case of mind mapping. Journal of Management Development,
26(4), 370-380.
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright reserved by the author(s).
This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).