Article Summary
In The Recess Debate: A Disjuncture between Educational Policy and Scientific Research, Anthony D. Pellegrini addresses the issues related to using recess in educational establishments. The paper’s purpose is to describe the importance of breaks for children and to provide arguments to support the researcher’s views. Furthermore, the source offers examples of opposing viewpoints regarding recess in educational institutions and justifies the irrationality of ignoring the importance of recess. Overall, the article provides evidence for the importance of implementing recesses and critically analyzes arguments against the importance of breaks in the educational process.
The source’s main points focus on analyzing the irrelevance of research aimed at leveling the importance of recess and presenting data on the positive impact of recess on the educational process. In analyzing irrelevant data on the importance of recess, information about replacing recesses with physical education lessons is significant. The paper includes information about the experience of implementing additional PE lessons as a substitute for recess in a school under Benjamin Canada’s supervision. This practice is considered questionable since it has no factual evidence and relies on personal observations and insights of school authorities (Pellegrini, 2008). Another critical point of the article is to provide information about the positive impact of recess on children’s productivity during the learning process. In this aspect, particular attention focuses on young children, who tend to become fatigued quickly and need changes in their activities (Pellegrini, 2008). Pellegrini provides data from research on child psychology to support the information about the importance of recess for children. Therefore, the source focuses on advocating the positive impact of recess as a necessary element for productive learning and development.
Article Response
Regarding my personal perspective on the source argument, I want to agree with the article’s information. The article’s arguments are rational since they are based on a focus on relevant scientific data. Pellegrini refers to the validity of the information in parsing all points of view about the importance of recess, which makes the source credible. In the context of criticizing opinions and practices regarding the negative impact of recess on children, the source refers to a lack of verified information. For instance, Benjamin Canada’s argument that recess is unimportant is questioned due to the lack of research to support this opinion (Pellegrini, 2008). Thus, Pellegrini provides an example of the lack of reasonable evidence of the adverse effects of recess on children’s productivity. In addition, the resource questions the relevance of tests conducted in Georgia in the early 1990s (Pellegrini, 2008). The arguments against the validity of the tests are valid as Pellegrini provides evidence of the unacceptability of conducting similar tests for the research. Thus, Pellegrini’s argument concerning the irrelevance of data on the negative impact of recess utilizes a scientific approach.
The arguments of Anthony D. Pellegrini regarding the positive impact of recess on children’s productivity are primarily addressed by evidence-based data. This approach allows the author to consider the resource relevant because he uses factual information. Moreover, the same approach is used to critique the data advocating the necessity of limiting or rejecting recess. Pellegrini provides objective evidence of a lack of supporting research or misapplication of research methods in claims of the adverse effects of recesses. Thus, the source features constructive criticism and reasoning regarding the issues of the arrangement of pauses in educational organizations. In general, the resource uses relevant data to support the opinion that recesses are critical to children’s productivity in the educational process.
Reference
Pellegrini, A., D. (2008). The recess debate: A disjuncture between educational policy and scientific research. American Journal of Play, 1(2), 181–191.