Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article

Recess is considered a useful learning tool that enhances concentration among learners. Academic institutions develop curricula with vital activities that incorporate periodic rest-time. This discussion presents two distinct viewpoints that support and argue against the social practice among learners. In essence, The recess debate: A disjuncture between educational policy and scientific research is an article with vital concepts regarding social competence and academic performance among learners (Pellegrini, 2008). The author claims that recess has unique social benefits useful to learners at an early age of physical and psychological growth. The research integrates empirical evidence regarding school performance, comparatively, between educational centers in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (Pellegrini, 2008). Those arguing against recess claim it as a waste of valuable instructional time when learners can interact freely without social restrictions such as talking, walking, or laughing. Those in support of recess attach the practice’s benefits to social and academic performance (Pellegrini, 2008). Learners must go for periodic recess between class sessions for accurate growth and development of cognitive and social skills away from instructional learning.

Acquiring academic knowledge is a psychologically intensive process as it requires high levels of concentration. Students are expected to obtain social and academic wisdom and skills through instructional learning (Pellegrini, 2008). As a result, those arguing in favor of recess claim that the process requires rest or periodic breaks for better outcomes. Many educational facilities ensure that learners get playing or resting time in between lessons. The practice has been used since the inception of formal education in the 1980s (Pellegrini, 2008). Most fundamentally, recess allows students to improve attention during class sessions, which have different learning outcomes. However, senior administrators in the education sector claim a waste of valuable time and develop regressive policies against the practice (Pellegrini, 2008). Instead, they claim that recess time can be optimized for adequate and comprehensive integration and delivery of academic knowledge to learners. In simpler terms, the practice should be minimized extensively to accommodate more learning sessions without recess.

I believe that individuals require a break from time to time as a useful strategy for improving performance. The article acknowledges that no research has presented substantial evidence to support improved learning outcomes without recess (Pellegrini, 2008). Canada, a participating country in an educational survey, presented no findings in which academic performance enhanced when recess time was eliminated (Pellegrini, 2008). However, sufficient evidence has been presented recognizing the importance of this activity among individuals. For instance, the author illustrates this significance among professionals who also go for breaks in an assembly line (Pellegrini, 2008). Consequently, I believe that recess should be an integral academic requirement with imminent social benefits for improving cognitive and interactional skills. In essence, acquiring knowledge is a psychologically-intensive process that should allow the brain to rest after high concentration levels.

Developing cognitive and social skills among learners requires periodic psychological rest. This is time allowed for learners to engage with each other interactively. Learners acquire vital cognitive skills not acquired in a normal learning environment. In essence, students follow a strict process of acquiring knowledge described as the instructional approach. Individuals arguing against the practice should be informed about the psychological benefits of recess time in both learning and professional institutions (Pellegrini, 2008). This model requires high levels of concentration for accurate delivery or achievement of specific learning outcomes. It is objective that learners are allowed time for socially progressive interaction away from instructional learning.


Pellegrini, A. D. (2008). The recess debate: A disjuncture between educational policy and scientific research. American Journal of Play, 1(2), 181-191.

Video Voice-over

Cite this paper

Select style


ChalkyPapers. (2023, October 16). Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article. Retrieved from


ChalkyPapers. (2023, October 16). Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article.

Work Cited

"Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article." ChalkyPapers, 16 Oct. 2023,


ChalkyPapers. (2023) 'Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article'. 16 October.


ChalkyPapers. 2023. "Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article." October 16, 2023.

1. ChalkyPapers. "Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article." October 16, 2023.


ChalkyPapers. "Response Dialogue for the Recess Debate Article." October 16, 2023.