Just another thought related to earlier discussions on definitions. I feel like leisure implies more restful, less active things like reading and recreation implies more active things like sports.
To help with my own understanding of the discussion, I went to dictionary.com and looked up autotelic. The definition I could find was "(of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening." I'm still playing with that thought so feel free to share any thoughts you have on it.
I like the concept of flow a lot. I'm not so sure fun is a required part of the definition though. I could argue that either way. Part of me thinks flow implies fun in its concept, after all, shouldn't a challenging experience that gives you opportunity to test your skills without being too hard, be exciting? On the other hand, if I get to working on something at work or reading an article in a text book that is pushing me to think, I experience flow. Scholarly reading and working hard don't exactly sound like fun!
Someone else mentioned in class that persons with ADD and schizophrenia cannot experience flow because they can't concentrate long enough to reach that level. I think I could argue that, too. My brother has ADD and I've seen him really put his heart and soul into things (like soccer for example) where he's being challenged but having fun. I think it would be incredibly sad if a person never got to experience flow!
In my undergrad, I studied Piaget as well as Lev Vygotsky. Their ideas and the one of flow mesh really well. Vygotsky coined the term "Zone of Proximal Development." The idea is that children learn when they are in an area that is above what they all ready know, but is not too hard for them to learn with out a little assistance (Check out http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/learning/lr1zpda.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development if you need a little more back ground info). So basically, if the child is being challenged, with something that they have the skills to do even though it's new, then the child will be learning. My thought is that when a child is learning in that zone of proximal development, they are very likely experiencing flow.
Next thought: Is play nature or nurture? Is it in our nature to play or is it something we learn by observing the world around us? Piaget's first stage of play is sensorimotor where infants play by using their senses. Isn't playing peek-a-boo with an infant teaching it to play? Isn't tickling an infant teaching it to play? I think nurture is a huge part of play!
And finally, here's my example of flow:
The building I worked in last semester had 2 stories although most of the building didn't have the second floor. Someone let a balloon loose and it ended up on the ceiling (2 stories up) where there wasn't second floor space. Obviously, we didn't have a ladder that reached high enough to get it down. My boss saw the balloon and challenged me to get it down before my shift was over. He told me he didn't think I could do it. It was definitely a huge challenge, but I had the skills needed to get it. I thought about it for half an hour, then tried 3 different solutions before I was able to get it down. The final solution involved double sided tape, a tennis ball, and a pool scoop. The entire process took about an hour and a half and I had fun from trying to accomplish my goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment