I’ve looked at how play ties in with technology, whether this interaction is positive and what we can do to promote these positive interactions, but now I want to look at the alternative. How do children play without technology, when they’re in outdoor spaces and interacting with physical objects? This style of play is inherently active rather than passive and as such is essential to children's learning. Many people believe outdoor time is the gold standard for how children should be educated and allowed to play. So, I want to look at the different forms this more ‘traditional’ play takes, if and where they succeed and where good design can help improve them.

One of the most universally accepted forms of outdoor play is sport. The thousands of different sports programs out there allow parents to get their children active in a way that challenges them, teaches them skills and motor function and encourages exercise, all within an incredibly social setting. From the age of 5, children start to take interest in the thoughts and feelings of their peers and so introducing them to the concept of teamwork at this earlier age is incredibly important. However, not all children will enjoy sports and this cannot make up the entirety of play. They are inherently rigid and instructional and allow kids a certain amount of self expression.

Here's a great article on it talking about studies which show that risky play leads to ”improved risk perception and competence compared to the other kids”. A lot of this might lean more into opinion than actual fact but you can read on and on online about how good exposure to nature and adventure is for children and how this exposure is so rapidly decreasing in the modern world. Maybe this is more apparent in city environments which pose more risks to children and parents are more wary, but the lack of outdoor adventure must be replaced by something and if that something is indoor there’s a good chance it will lead to screens.

One interesting case study when looking at the impact of play within education is Montessori schools. These schools follow the scientific research of Maria Montessori so take what might be considered by some to be a more ‘hippie’ approach to education. At the core of this is the philosophy that children should be left to lead their own play and that this play should be facilitated to maximise interaction with the world around them. Through this freedom, children are able to learn faster and in more productive ways; when allowed to be exploratory and free, play stimulates more learning and understanding of new concepts. Another great example of this interaction is described in the Netflix episode of ‘Abstract: the Art of Design’ titled: ‘Cas Holman - Design for play’. I keep mentioning my earlier blog post on this episode as it has really influenced a lot of my thinking surrounding this topic. I think Holman’s insight into how children play and how she designs to facilitate this is the best description and examples I have seen of how objects can be designed for open-ended play. A lot of her designs are things I want to talk about in my presentation, so if you want to read more about them you guessed it….. Read here!

Within the culmination of this episode, Holman talks about the AnjiPlay system in China and her work with the designer of AnjiPlay. This is something I haven’t done much research into, but is a great place to look, as where Montessori schools embody their philosophy in all aspects of learning, AnjiPlay has a specific focus on play. Anji play is An educational philosophy and approach created by Cheng Xueqin, in Anji County, China. Described as “Grounded in love, risk, joy, engagement, and reflection, AnjiPlay returns the right of True Play to every child.”. It is described as having “a fundamental belief in the ability of the child, and a commitment to the right of every child to experience extended periods of self-directed, uninterrupted, and unguided play.”. The whole concept of Anji Play is inherently very philosophical but is a philosophy that I wholeheartedly agree with. I would definitely recommend taking a look at what they do on their website, here, as this describes their philosophies and practices in a lot more detail. Central to Anji play is a lack of expectations for how children play. The principles: “Take care of and do not hurt: Yourself, others and the environment” underpins play, but other than these basic tenets, children are free to use their environment how they would like.



Within this environment, Ms. Cheng has designed over 150 products for use in Anji play, carefully constructed to allow for different forms of exploration. These products are simplistic in design as they are constructed to “provide the greatest degree of possibility and complexity in play through minimal structure, open-endedness, inter-relatability, and sturdiness.” They almost use the idea of: ‘buy a kid a huge dollhouse and they’ll spend hours playing with the box’! The toys look much like ‘real world’ objects such as barrels, ladders and planks as the components are intentionally designed to make children feel like they aren’t using toys and to facilitate easy experimentation with building, verticality and risk taking. Most Importantly, children are free to use the components as they like; there is no guidance or correct way to use them. Teachers within the AnjiPlay philosophy are told not to guide or dictate the children's play. Only if something appears to be breaking the golden rule of ‘take care…’ will teachers step in, as the core philosophy of AnjiPlay is to allow children to take risks and discover their own limits.




It’s evident that this topic centres a lot more around philosophy than design, but then what is good design if not design with strong philosophies? I think Holman’s work embodies the philosophies of AnjiPlay whilst maintaining a high level of finish within her design. Her work such as Rigamajig, Geemo and the big Blue Blocks bring open ended play and exploration to children within sleek and modern design and this is where I think designers have the most potential to further play. Sticking to your design philosophies and giving full consideration to the way that people will interact with your works will always produce better design. So, the way that we can design for productive play is to design for freedom. To design like Cas Holman in ways that are conducive to children playing how they want. If we are designing technology, apps, shows, ai, VR, whatever it is, serious consideration needs to be given to who will use it and how they will use it; the same moral consideration that should be given to any design of ‘who is it for’ and ‘how will it affect them’, is it positive? This consideration needs to be even greater for children, would you give it to your child? Maybe I have fallen quite heavily into my own opinion here, however I think that as long as this has made you think about what good play means to you, it’s done its job. Despite how technology is implemented into children’s lives in the future, and whether as a parent or a designer, we can all try to promote our own versions of ‘Good Play’.

Example content of comment

5th Jan