In discussing the importance of computer games for conveying serious messages through play, Aleks Krotoski uses “play” and “games” interchangeably (Nature 466, 695; 2010). However, this is incorrect in the context of human development: these terms denote separate constructs, with different ontogenies, proximal causes and functions.
Play is mainly a behaviour of juveniles and is not functional in its immediate environment; its benefits relate to creativity and novelty. Games are developed later in childhood and are governed by rules based on deduction; their benefits tend to be specific to the game's dimensions (such as hand–eye coordination). What Krotoski describes are games, not play: interaction with an end in mind.
This conflation is potentially damaging. Science can progress only if constructs are clearly delineated and used consistently; where there is deviation, definitions should be explicit. Inexact usage may also mislead policy-makers: take Krotoski's claim that “computer-based play can support learning in schools”. To my knowledge, there is very little evidence that play, as defined here, affects school-based learning; where it does, it is limited to preschool children. But there is good evidence that games help school-age children.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pellegrini, A. Games and play mean different things in an educational context. Nature 467, 27 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/467027c
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/467027c