Journal of Research in Childhood Education1996, Vol. II, No. I

Copyr ight 1996 by the Associ ation forChildhood Education International

0256-8543/ 94

"We Did More Then": Changes in Pupils' Perceptionsof Breaktime (Recess) from 7 to 16 Years

Peter BlatchfordUniv er sit y of London

Abstract. This paper reports on changes in recess activities from 7 to 16 years.The focus is on pupils' own descriptions oftheir activities, and on the ir explana­tions for why activities had changed. Previous research ha s focused on theprimaryyears, but becau se recess occurs throughout the school years in England,it was possible to take a longer-term view. The study was longitudinal;researchers interviewed pupils from inner London schools at 7, 11 and 16 years(Ns were 133, 175 and 108, respectively, with 72 ofthe same children interviewedat all three ages). Main themes emerging from both quantitative and qualitativeanalysis were 1) primary break tim es were seen as enjoyable and carefree, 2)activity levels declined from primary to secondary, 3) less games and playactivities took place, 4) pupils thought they had more freedom of mo vement atsecondary, Pupil exp lanations for these changes are analyzed. Results arediscussed in terms ofdevel opmental and school influences, sex differences, andconcerns about school policies leading to less tim e at recess.

Well when I was in primary school (it was )play time, it seemed like it was always time toplay. It would be morning play, lunch play ,last play, I just felt like I was playing all thetime. But now you don 't re ally get much timeto regain your youth, you have to be an adultall the time, even when you're in school. Youhave to think rationall y about everything,you don 't get time to mess about.

(quote from London 16-year-old)

The study of breaktime has acquired anew vigor recently, but also a sense of ur­gency. There is a growing awareness ofrecess, and some initiatives to improve play­ground environments and supervision(Blatchford & Sharp, 1994), but there isalso a growing anti-recess viewpoint devel­oping in the U.K., the U.S. (see Pellegrini,1995), and Australia that threatens to re­strict pupils' traditional freedoms to inter­act and play in a relatively unsupervisedsetting. A recent national surveyhas shownthat in England pupils have recess through­out their compulsory schooling, typicallyfor 15 or 20 minutes mid-morning, andsometimes the same period in the after-

noon , and about one hour at lunchtime(Blatchford & Sumpner, 1996). The term"playti me"is often used at the primary level(4-11 years), whereas the term "breaktime"is preferred at secondary (11 to 16 years).In this discussion, the term 'breaktime' isused for all breaks because it is more inclu­sive and indicates that breaktime issuesare ofrelevance through all the school years.It is interchangeable with the term "re­cess," which is used in the U.S. to denotethis part of the school day, although here itis experienced only by the younger grades.

When breaktime is considered by schoolstaffit is often in the context ofbeing seen asa problem area (Blatchford, 1993; Blatch­ford, 1994a). Many primary teachers viewbehavior at breaktime as unnecessarily ag­gressive and aimless, and conclude thattraditional games have all but disappeared(Blatchford, 1989). A negative view aboutbreaktime has been heightened by fears ofan increase in unacceptable behavior inschools, which in the U.K. led to the com­missioning of the Elton Committee (DES,1989). The Elton Committee report describedthe long lunchbreak as "the single biggest

14

CHANGES IN PUPILS' PERCEPTIONS OF BREAKTIME

behavior related problem that (staff) face."There have also been growing fears in theU.K. and elsewhere aboutbullyingin schools,most of which occurs on the playground atbreaktime (Whitney & Smith, 1993).

In contrast to this view, there is a grow­ing body of work showing the positive effectofbreaktime for pupils. This research stemsfrom the often expressed value of peer rela­tions and friendships and play in child de­velopment (Hartup, 1992). It is also drivenby the reported serious long-term effects onpersonal adjustment from peer rejection(Parker & Asher, 1987) that can find ex­pression at breaktime, as well as from thesocial and educational value of playgroundinteractions in particular (see Pellegrini &Smith, 1993). Previous research at theInstitute of Education has shown that forpupils of7 , 11 and 16 years ofage, breaktimeis a significant and generallyenjoyable time,when they can play, meet friends and havefreedom from adult control (Blatchford,1994b; Blatchford, Creeser, & Mooney, 1990).It is at breaktime that children develop adistinctive and vibrantculture, separatefromthe school culture, and not easily recognizedby adults (Blatchford, 1995).

There is also a growing recognition nowthat researchers can learn much about chil­dren from studying their behavior atbreaktime and their attitudes toward it(Hart, 1993; Smith, 1994). It is at breaktimethat children develop a distinctive and vi­brant culture, separate from the school cul­ture, and not easily recognized by adults.Pupils are the participants at breaktime­the experts, as it were-and often the onlywitnesses of what goes on then.

One assumption is that life on the play­ground can help children acquire manysubtle social skills essential to later life(e.g., Sluckin, 1981). This notion of recessplayas preparation for adulthood has beencalled a "socialization model" (Pellegrini,1995) . Sutton-Smith(1982) cautions againstan extreme version of this view because ofthe way it can detract from a recognition ofthe value of interaction to pupils here andnow . "An approach to peer groups only interms of their 'socialization' value is ... mis-

taking an occasional consequence ...for thecentral meaning of the activity. Peer inter­action is not a preparation for life. It is lifeitself' (1982 , p. 75). Sutton-Smith goes onto argue that "the most important thing toknow about peer culture is what is going onthere. That is, that we might learn more ofthe structure and more of the function ifwefirst studied what the action is (that is) theperformances that are central to children..."(p.68).

The data reported here come from alongitudinal study of pupils' progress from5 to 16 years in inner London schools (Tizard,Blatchford,Burke, Farquhar, & Plewis, 1988,for the rationale and research design ofstudy). One part of the research involvedinterviews with children at 7, 11, and 16years. Topics covered included academicself assessment, attitudes toward schoolwork and school, behavior in school, fu­tures, and views on breaktime, bullying,teasing, fighting and friendships . In earlierwork, pupil activities and attitudes tobreaktime at 7 years (Tizard et al., 1988),and their playground games and attitudestoward playtime (Blatchford et al., 1990) ,and teasing and fighting (Mooney, Cresson,& Blatchford, 1991) at 11 years have beenreported. The same pupils' views at 16years on breaktime and social life have beenreported in Blatchford (1994a, 1996a).

This study focused on pupils' activitiesat breaktime, in particular their changeover time. The long-term perspective pro­vided by the present study allowed a uniqueopportunity to gain insights into changes inchildren's activities and social lives over thewhole of their schooling. The premise isthat understanding changes over time inbreaktime activities can give valuable in­sights into social development. The paperexamines change in activity in three ways.First, basic information was collected onpreferredactivities ateachage-onhow thesechange and on gender differences. Informalinformation obtained during the projectsuggested a major change in activities fromprimary to secondary school and the aimwas to chart the nature of the change andwhether changes had taken place at or after

15

BLATCHFORD

the transfer to secondary school. Second,interviews giving the views of pupils them­selves when aged 16 years, and therefore intheir last year of compulsory schooling, onwhat changes had taken place over time intheir breaktime activities were conducted.Third, the pupils' own explanations forchanges thathad taken place were explored.There are important questions concerningwhy activities change, such as to what ex­tent these can be attributed to changeswithin the child, and to what extent theyare better considered as changes affected bychanges in peer culture and self concept.

MethodSubjectsThe original longitudinal sample consistedof children entering in September 1982 thereception classes of 33 infant schools ininner London. The schools were in multi­racial, mostly working class and relativelydeprived areas. Det ails ofthe sample selec­tion are in Blatchford (1992a, 1992b) andTizard et al. (1988) . Numbers of childreninterviewed were 133 at 7 years, and 175 at11 years (the sample size was increased by

the inclusion ofso-called "reserves," that is,children who had similar ethnic and gendercharacteristics to others in the study-seeBlatchford 1992a). By 16 years, 108 of thechildren were reinterviewed. Clearly, therewill be attrition of subjects in a long-termstudy ofthis type, especially one located inan inner city area. A core of 72 childrenwere interviewed at all three ages.

ProcedureObservation methods have certain advan­tages, and classroom observations of teach­ers and pupils were collected in the earlyphases of the research (Blatchford et al.,1987). For this study, interviews were pre­ferred as a way ofgettingfull descriptions ofactivity preferences that could be checkedwith pupils, and as a means of probing inorder to get a full account of rules, nuances,content and social dynamics of games, andattitudes to breaktime events. The inter­views were semi-structured in the sensethat at each age there was a core of pre­piloted questions consistent over time butadapted to changes in age. Some questionsasked pupils to choose closed alternatives

Table 1What Games Children Say They Play in the Playground: ll-year-olds

Boys % Girls % N %

Chasing games: basic 46 47 80 46Back to base 3 8 10 6Touch with ball 11 1 11 6Chased at disadvantage 3 9 11 6Chased have immunity 1 5 5 3Chaser at disadvantage 1 2 3 2Caught join chaser 9 5 12 7Touch has noxious effect 5 6 9 5

Catching games 19 12 27 16Seeking games 8 27 30 17Racing games 10 13 20 12Daring games 0 1 1 1Guessing games 0 2 2 1Pretending games 2 9 10 6Ball games: football 84 36 105 60

Other ball games 36 27 55 32Ball games using wall 10 7 15 9

Skipping games: with rope 5 13 15 9with elastic 0 13 11 6

Games using playground markings 2 5 6 3Marbles 0 0 0 0Ring and clapping games and rhymes 0 4 3 2Toys and pretend fights 2 0 2 1Others 6 7 11 6

16

CHANGES IN PUPILS ' PERCEPTIONS OF BREAKTIME

or points on a scale, and some were openwith answers coded after data collection.Both types of data were analyzed numeri­cally. But at each age, and especially at 16,there was some flexibility in the ordering ofquestions and in allowing the interview toextend beyond core questions. At 7 and 11years, answers were noted verbatim by in­terviewers. At 16 years, interviews weretaped and later transcribed. At this age amore qualitative analysis was possible, inthe sense that pupil accounts were exam­ined and sections collated in terms ofthemes,with verbatim quotes then being extractedfor illustrative purposes. Interviews with7-year-old pupils were more limited in cov­erage than the later interviews.

ResultsChanges in Breaktime ActivitiesOver the Time PeriodsOnly data on activities during the dinnertime break are presentedhere; however, dataon the morning breaktime gave a similarpicture.

Data collectedfrom the children at sevenyears were limited. The pupils clearly likedplaytime and the main activities cited werethe opportunity to run around and playgames (Tizard et al. , 1988) . At 11 years,pupils' first three responses were coded andclassified using a scheme based on the work

ofthe Opies (1969) and adapted by Blatch­ford et al. (1990). Full results on prevalencesand gender differences of activities at 11years can be found in Table 1. In order toincrease sample sizes, results for the fullavailable sample at each age are used.

Breaktime activities were dominated byactive games, with the most popular activi­ties being ball games and chasing games.The most popular game of all was football(soccer ), played by 60% of children, boysmore than girls (84% of boys, 36% of girls).Other ball games such as netball, basket­ball and cricket were played by 32% ofchildren. Chasing games were defined inthe same way as the Opies (1969), that is,games in which a player tries to touchothers who are running freely in a pre­scribed area. The most common chasinggame by far was the basic game of"it ,""had"or ''h e'' (46% of children). Seeking games(17%), catching games (16%), racing games(12%) and skipping games (9% with a rope,6% with elastic) were also noted. Of activi­ties other than games, talking to friends(48%), walking and hanging around (32%),and just sitting down (28%) were the mostcommon.

There were differences between boysand girls at 11 years in reported activities(N=434) 71.1, p <.OOl). As can be seen inTable 1, girls were more likely than boys to

Table 2Lunchtime Activit ies: 16-year-olds

Boys % Girls % N %

Talk to friends/socializing 60 82 78 72Messing about 13 15 15 14Smoking 4 5 5 5Eating/queuing for food 2 0 1 2Working 17 37 30 28Reading 6 8 8 7Football 48 8 28 26Other ball sports 15 8 12 11Cards/chess 25 15 21 20Chasing/catching games 2 0 1 1Perfect duty 2 3 3 3Listening to music 0 15 9 8Debates/discussion 0 8 5 5Talk to teachers 2 3 3 2Playing pooVsnooker/fruit machines 10 2 6 6Shopping 2 0 1 1TV 0 3 2 2Other 0 3 4 4

17

BLATCHFORD

Table 3Activities Reported by Pupils at 11 and 16 Years (% of Pupils)

11 Years 16 YearsBoy Girl Total Boy Girl Total

Football 84 36 60 48 8 26Other ball games 36 27 32 15 8 11Basic chasing game 46 47 46 2 0 1Catching games' 19 12 16Talking to friends" 48 48 48 60 82 72Walking socializing

,.23 39 32

Cards/chess 1 0 1 23 15 20Working 0 0 0 17 17 28

*These were combined in one code at 16 years, but were separate codes at 11 years and could not beadded because they could be the same pupils.**As above

play seeking games, pretending games, andskipping games. Daring games, guessinggames, pretendinggames, games usingplay­ground markings, ring games, rhymes andclapping games, and games using marblesor other materials were rarely or nevermentioned, and then only by girls. Boysseemed involved but less varied in theirplay than girls. For boys , football domi­nated, and had a main role in their play­ground culture.

At 16 years, different activities weredescribed and sometimes different codeshad to be used, and so comparisons with 11­year-olds are not always possible. Full dataon prevalences of activities are reported inTable 2. Results on activities that could becompared at 11 and 16 years are summa­rized in Table 3.

The main change is that games otherthan football have all but disappeared;foot­ball is now played by only 26% ofpupils, an donly one pupil ment ioned a chasing game.At 11 years, other ball games (netball, bas­ket ball, patball) were mentioned by 32% ofchil dren; at 16 years the percentage playingsuch games was only 11%. So there were farmore active games at 11 years.

By 16 years, the most popular activitywas talking to friends, hanging around andsocializing (72%). These codes were com­bined at 16 years because ofthe difficultiesin separating them-hanging around usu­ally meant in a social context. It was notpossible to add these codes at 11 years toarrive at a score for each child, because the

codes were not mutually exclusive, and thesame pupil may have reported both catego­ries. Another main change by 16 years isthe extent of pupils reporting working dur­ing lunchtime (28% of pupils). None ofthe11-year-olds reported this. As at 11 years,there was a significant difference betweenboys and girls in reported breaktime activi­ties (X2 [17, 233]=50.85,p<0.00l). As can beseen in Table 2, boys were more likely toreport playing football, other ball games,and cards and chess. Girls were more likelyto talk to friends and socialize, do schoolwork, and listen to music. In answer to aseparate question, boys were more likelythan girls at 16 years to say they playedgames (X2 [1,105]= 13.1,p<0.00l).

Pupils' Views (at 16 years) ofChangesin Their Breaktime ActivitiesPupils at 16 years were asked questionsconcerning how they viewed the changefrom primary to secondary breaks, andwhich they preferred. To the question,"looking back, how are breaktimes differentnow to when you were at primary school? ,"the most common answer was that theyplayed more games at primary level (46% ofpupils). They also said that they were moreactive and energetic at primary school (21%),and had more fun at primary school (21%).About a quarter (28%) also said that break­times at primary were longer. There was aperception held by around a third (32%) ofpupils that there was more freedom ofmove­ment at secondary school, for example, to go

18

CHANGES IN PUPILS ' PERCEPTIONS OF BREAKTIME

out of the school, though still not enough forsome. Others also identified differences inorganization between primary and second­ary, so that, for example, there was morechoice offood and they did not all have to sittogether (21% of pupils). One in 10 pupilsalso felt that breaktime at secondary wasmore grown up and less child-like than atprimary.

To the question concerning which theypreferred, primary or secondary, it mightappear from these earlier answers thatthey would favor primary playtime, but infact more favor ed s econdary schoolbreaktimes (50% vs. 32%). In addition,17% said they liked both or that it wasimpossible to compare. Price (1994 ), in astudy of one secon dary school, also foundthat pupils then preferred secondary toprimary breaktimes , despite worriesabout aggressive behavior at the second­ary level.

Given the perception of change fromprimary to secondary in breaktime activi­ties, how sudden was this change? Is thetransition to secondary enough to alter themore active style of playing seen at pri­mary school? Or is there some continuityfrom primary to the early years of second­ary school? To get pupils' views on this weasked them if the things they did atbreaktime had changed over the time theyhad been at secondary school. Most (73%)said they had, and most commonly this wasthought to be because they played moregames,for example, football, in earlieryearsat secondary school. They also said theyacted more grown-up now at 16, and hadmore grown-up interests. A concurrentresponse was that they had more freedomnow, for example, to go out of school.

Girls more than boys said that a differ­ence between primary and secondary wasthat more games were played at primaryschool (32 girls vs . 18 boys) and that theywere more active (18 girls vs. 5 boys) andhad more fun then (17 girls vs. 6 boys) .This reflects an important shift in girls'school culture. During primary schoolplaytimes, games and play figured largely,but by the end of secondary school they

played no games at all. Boys, on the otherhand, to some extent kept up an involve­ment in active pursuits and games throughfootball.

Themes ofBreaktime ActivityA look in more detail at themes arising outof examination of the interview transcriptshelps illustrate answers arising from thequantitative analysis. These include percep­tion offun, activity level, and type of play.

Fun. A main aspect of pupils' accountswas the sense that primary playtimes weremore fun, enjoyable and carefree, as seen,for example, in the quote given at the begin­ning of this paper. At some point in theirschool lives the "fun" goes out ofplay activi­ties. The following extract describes howplay activities stopped after a short time insecondary school. One can sense the dis­tance from previously enjoyed activities.

P: Yeah we used to play football , or what's itcalled-"Bulldog" and something else,what'sthis thing where you run forward and runback again, basically we thought (it ) was funbut not any more . .. it was just like oneperson in the middle and fifty of you thereand you have to run by without gettingtouched and we thought this was fun (laughs)but not anymore, that soon stopped.

The decline in fun and excitement inbreaktime activities is associated with thedecline in playground games and activities.

Activity level. A second main changefrom primary to secondary and from earlyto late secondary, evident from pupils' ac­counts, is a decline in activity levels, typi­cally from running about and active play toa more sedentary style of behavior, involv­ing sitting and talking. Over the secondaryyears comes less taste for, and more con­trary forces against, activity for its ownsake. Physical activity is more likely to beaccepted in time periods allotted to it (forexample, in physical education), or in foot­ball played out of school. There was ageneral unease expressed by the pupilsabout their inactivity, no doubt exacerbatedby the recalling ofhow much things differedat primary school. They sometimes ex-

19

BLATCHFORD

pressed a desire to have more activities, yetseemed not to know how this might comeabout, or, one suspects, whether they reallywanted to change what they did currently,and return to earlier styles of behavior.

Types ofplay. The main way break­times were seen to differ over time, as wehave seen from the quantitative results,was thatfewer games and playactivities tookplace. For the following pupil the reductionseems to occur at the transition from thelower and upper schools at secondary, that is,from years (grades) 8 to 9 (12113 to 13/14years).

P: Well when I was in first and second yearin the lower school , you know I'd run andplay games, play rounders and that, runaround the playground .. .. Like most of myfriends , as we've come up through the years[we] have changed. I suppose now, I'm prob­ably boring now, I just sit around reading orsomething. I talk to someone where as thenI would be up and running around.

Reasons for Changes inBreaktime ActivitiesPerhaps the most important developmentalquestion concerns why these changes takeplace. There are likely to be many reasons­maturational, cognitive and cultural-thatwould help account for changes. But how dopupils themselves account for the changesthey identified in their own behavior over theschool years? How do they account for themain developmental trend toward a reduc­tion in play and games at breaktime overthe school years? The following discussioncomes from examination oftheir reflectionon changes in activities. Their explanationscould be classified in terms of expectationsof age appropriateness, choices of activityavailable, location of breaktime, the impor­tance of school work, and social factors .

Age appropriate expectations: Perhapsthe main reason for change was pupils' grow­ing sense of maturity, and what they con­sider is appropriate for someone oftheir age.

P: We've got older I think. I mean youcouldn't really see us running around play­ing 'Had', cause it's just not really done , it'snot as enjoyable either.

An allied response was that they felt"silly" playing games, and would have beenembarrassed to have been seen acting likethis. This is part of a powerful and clearlyvisible peer pressure affecting behaviorduring free time in school. There seemed tooperate now a more self-conscious appraisalgoverning freetime activities. By compari­son, what is remarkable about primaryschool playtimes is how unself-consciouspupils are, launching themselves into fren­zied or repetitive games, and in markedcontrast to the affected inactivity ofthe latesecondary years. Another connected re­sponse is more self understanding.

P: . . . like I suppose in primary you used todo things maybe more outrageous 'cause youdidn't understand so much cause you'reyounger and you don't understand so muchand you may not realize you're doing. Butnow you understand more.

This growing sense of maturity andself understanding seems to go beyondmaturational change, in the sense that itreflects an attitudinal change stronglyinfluenced by peer pressure, that growsin strength over the secondary years .Primary school type activities are ratherfrowned upon, and an exaggerated inac­tivity takes hold.

Choice alternatives. The second rea­son, drawn from pupil accounts, for changesin breaktime activities, is a growing senseof the value of having choice about how tospend breaktimes, and having the freedomto choose to go out to the playground or stayin school, and whether to go out of theschool grounds. There is much less possi­bility of planning in this way at primary,both for developmental reasons in terms ofcognitive factors, and also because there ismuch less freedom allowed pupils. Pupilsseemed to value the freedom at secondarylevel that comes from going out of school,even taking risks of punishment to get out,and despite seeming not to do much morethan walk to a shop. It is the having achoice that is important, more so than theactivity that follows from the choice.

20

CHANGES IN PUPILS' PERCEPTIONS OF BREAKTIME

Settings for breaktime. There is athird and allied factor that seems to ex­plain, from the pupil's viewpoint, changesin breaktime activities from primary to sec­ondary. At primary school, pupils usuallyhave to go out to the playground at playtime.In consequence, almost all breaktime ac­tivities are activities on a playground. Butour survey of breaktime locations showedthat by the end of secondary school pupilsindicated they spent more time in the schoolbuildings (46%) than in the school grounds(28%); a further 26% went to locations out­side the school. Even taking into accountother factors discussed here, more to dowith pupils' changing image of themselves,they are bound to adapt their behavior andactivity to the environment they find them­selves in, and pupils at primary level , find­ing themselves on playgrounds more often,are likely to run and play more. This mayalso explain some of the difference in activi­ties between early and late secondary, be­cause younger pupils are much less likely tobe allowed out of the school grounds, andhence are more likely to find themselves onthe school playground and playing games .

School work importance. A fourthreason for changes in breaktime activitiesthat arises out of pupil accounts has to dowith a growing sense of the importance ofschool work. As they progress throughsecondary school and final examinationsgrow closer, pupilscan cometosee breaktimesas an opportunity to study and continuework, as well as providing a breakfrom work.

Social factors. Finally, changes inbreaktime were explained by pupils in termsof social factors . We have seen the almostuniversal move from play activities to talk­ing and chatting with friends. Talking andsocializing was common at the primarystage, but through the secondary yearsgames and play declined to leave socializingthe dominant activity. The type of socialtalk had also changed. One pupil said: "It'sa bigger school so you get to know morepeople" and went on to draw a distinctionbetween rather mindless interactions atprimary school and those now within whichthey talked "properly."

ConclusionsAccounts taken from the same children at 7,11 and 16 years show a change from activegames such as football (soccer), chasing andcatching at the primary stage to talking andsocializing with friends by the end of thesecondary stage. Of special interest waspupils' own retrospective accounts at 16years of changes from primary to second­ary. There clearly are validity issues withregard to data of this kind; it is possible, forexample, that retrospective accounts maytend to distort some aspects of earlier expe­riences, in terms of current concerns. Nev­ertheless, pupils' accounts are importantbecause as participants, and often the onlywitnesses, they have privileged access, andcan provide an important perspective onchanges over time in breaktime activities.For the future, though, these data wouldneed to be supplemented by alternativeapproaches involving, for example, obser­vation or diary records.

Findings in this study showed thatplaytimes at younger ages were seen as morecarefree and more enjoyable, more active,and more games and play took place. Pupilexplanations for changes in breaktime ac­tivities were a growing sense of maturityand self understanding, a greater valueattached to choice about how to spend break­time, not having to go out to the playgroundat breaktime, a greater sense of the impor­tance of school work, and changes in thenature of social relations. The general di­mensions of concern to adolescent pupils­a concern with personal control and theonset of self-consciousness and less sponta­neity-are not new, but focusing onbreaktime activities-the part of the schoolday most obviously owned by pupils-giveschanges over the school years a particularapplication.

One obvious conclusion to be drawnfrom pupil accounts is to see changes inbreaktime activities over the school yearsas a progressive loss of activities. Thevitality of primary school days contrastswith the seemingly covert and unfocusedactivities oftheir last years at school. Butone needs to be cautious about this conclu-

21

BLATCHFORD

sion, in that it may be that energies arechannelled into different activities. As theymove through secondary school, pupils' so­cial lives become important in new anddeeper ways, and are vital in their develop­ing sense of who they are and what theywant to do. In consequence, social concernsare not so tied to location and activity and,in contrast to primary school , are not sovisible to staff.

An important issue concerns the rea­sons for changes in breaktime activities­in particular, to what extent they are theresult of developmental changes within thechild or affected by outside factors . Thepressure of peers is likely to be a powerfulforce that has much to do with the deepinhibition about playing games and thedevelopment of a seemingly exaggeratedand growing inactivity through the second­ary years. The presence of primary-likegames during the first years of secondaryindicates the place and potential longevityof games in unsupervised activities. Inpupils who transferred from lower to uppersecondary schools at 13 years there seemedto be a marked change in breaktime activi­ties, and thus showed the likely influence ofpeer pressure and school culture exerted inthe upper school. There appears, then, to bea transition stage during the early years ofsecondary when play activities from pri­mary are carried over; within a year or two,however, they all but disappear. It may bethat games and play are useful in the earlystages of secondary as a familiar mediumthrough which to develop new friendships,but their decline is accelerated as otherways of mediating friendships develop.

In the English school system differentpolicies among local education authoritiesmean that pupils can transfer to secondaryeducation at either 11 or 12 years. A com­parison of breaktime activities of same agechildren, some of whom remain in primaryschools and some ofwhom have transferredto secondary schools, would do much toseparate effects of maturity from peer andschool influences.

One intriguing aspect to pupils' reportsof the difference between breaktimes now

and earlier in their school careers, is theirrecognition of something now lost. By nomeans did all regret changes in breaktime,and at 16 years more preferred secondary toprimary breaktimes. Even so, one detecteda regret that they no longer moved andacted with the spontaneity and engage­ment of earlier years. One might describethis as a sense of nostalgia, and it is likelythat this sense develops in parallel with adevelopingsense ofthe importance ofchoice.Nostalgia may well depend on a recognitionof alternative courses of action, and of theconsequences of change. From this point ofview, asking pupils to look back on and toreview earlier stages in their schooling givesinsights into social worlds they had createdfor themselves and that have particularmeaning for them. There is more involve­ment likely here than in life in the class­room, where control is not with them butwith their teachers.

Differences between schools have notbeen considered here, but may well be animportant factor in affecting breaktime be­havior. Differences in school environments,provision of recreation and play areas, andstaffattitudes, policies and school rules areall likely to interact with pupil perspectivesand affect pupil breaktime cultures. Thus,they are also worthy of study.

Gender differences in breaktime activi­ties have been reported elsewhere (for ex­ample, Pellegrini, 1995). A feature of thepresent study was the opportunity to studygender differences over a longer time periodthan previous research. Consequences ofchanges seemed different for boys and girls.While both boys and girls became less ac­tive with age , boys' activities at primarylevel were dominated by football (soccer)and active games, and there was more con­tinuityintothe secondary years, both in thesense of playing more active games, espe­cially football, than girls, but also becausethere is more continuity into adolescentand adult male (especially working class)culture, where football also has a mainplace. The change was more marked forgirls because there is less obvious continu­ity between games preferred at primary

22

CHANGES IN PUPILS ' PERCEPTIONS OF BREAKTIME

level, which it has been argued are a part ofgirls' distinctive culture that enables em­powerment in the face of boys (Grudgeon,1993 ), and the predominantly social andnonactive pursuits preferred at secondary.Girls' primary school breaktime culture hasno obvious place in secondary school life.The sense of a lost or buried world of child­hood, noted by students of children's cul­ture, is more noticeable in the case of girls.

The study of breaktime activities re­veals much about more general changes insocial relations between children. This isbecause pupils reveal so much about them­selves in unsupervised settings in whichthey have control of activities. At bothprimary and secondary levels pupils valuebreaktime for its social opportunities, butthe relationships between aspects of socialrelations like friendships and breaktimeactivities change with age. Study of thethese changing connections with age, aswell as detailed analysis of changes in teas­ing and fighting over the school years, basedon the longitudinal database, is reported inBlatchford (1996b).

Finally, this study highlights the valueof recess from pupils' perspectives, and theneed for concern and careful considerationof any changes to it. A main worry is that,because the value ofthis part ofthe schoolday for the child is only poorly understoodby staff, it is being gradually cut down . Arecent survey has shown a tendency forschools in England to have reduced timespent at breaktime and lunch (Blatchford &Sumpner, 1996). As a result, pupils may belosing the opportunity for free relationswith peers, the development of friendships,and, more widely, though more specula­tively, the furtherance of a distinctive cul­ture (Blatchford, 1996a). Visits to schoolsmade in the longitudinal study showed thatthroughout both primary and secondaryschool years there did not appear to be aclear view about the purpose and value ofbreaktime. Moreover, as pupils get olderand their activities change and become lesschildlike, they seem more poorly served byschools. At secondary level pupils oftenhave few obvious places to go, and little

provision of activities and materials. Rulesabout where to go, and ideas about what todo there, are minimal. There are certainlyconcerns that playtime at primary schoolcould be improved (see Blatchford & Sharp,1994), but there is generally more aware­ness among school staffof the role ofplay inprimary school pupils' lives . However, bysecondary school the culture has movedfrom expression through play and activityto purely social forms. It is difficult toescape the conclusion that at secondarylevel pupils are left to engage in what theyvalue most in ways that owe nothing at allto any thought about how they might spendtheir time. It is difficult to know what theyare expected to do. They are left to exist onthe margins of the school buildings, andtheir concerns and contributions go un­heard. More practically, the numbers ofpupils leaving school for the shops at lunch­time, and the sometimes illicit means ofdoing so, might well be reduced if staff setup some dialogue with them about theirconcerns and interests and if there werefacilities in school in which pupils couldexpress interest during breaktime.

ReferencesBlatchford, P. (1989). Playt ime in the primary school:

Problems and improv ements. Windsor: NFER­Nelson . Now reprinted London : Routledge.

Blatchford, P. (1992a ). Academic self assessment on7 and 11 years: Its accuracy and as sociation withethnic group and sex. British Journal of Educa­tional Psychology, 62, 35-44.

Blatchford, P. (1992b). Children's views on work injunior schools . Educational S tudies,18(1), 107­119.

Blatchford, P. (1993). Bully ing and the school play­ground. In D. Tattum (Ed.), Understanding andmanaging bullying. Oxford: Heinemann.

Blatchford, P. (1994a) . Research on children's schoolplayground behaviourin the U.K.: Areview. In P.Blatchford, & S. Sharp (Eds.), Breaktime and theschool: Understanding and chang ing playgroundbehaviour (pp. 16-35). London : Routledge.

Blatchford, P. (1994b). Pupil perceptions of breaktimeand implications for breaktime improvements:Evidence from England. Paper presented to th eAmerican Educational Research Association An­nual Meeting, New Orleans, USA.

Blatchford, P. (1996a ). Taking pupils seriously: Re­cent research and initiatives on breaktime. Edu­cation 3-13, October, 61-66.

23

BLATCHFORD

Blatchford, P. (1996b) . The social world of school:Pupils' experiences at breakt ime from 7 to 16 years.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Blatchford, P., Burke, J ., Farquhar, C., Plewis, I., &Tizard, B. (1987b). An observational study ofchildren's behaviour at infant school. ResearchPapers in Education, 2(1), 47-62. Reprinted in M.Woodhead & A Mcgrath (Eds.), (1988), Family,school and society. London : Open University/Hodder and Stoughton (pp. 96-111).

Blatchford, P., Creeser, R , & Mooney, A (1990). Play­ground games and playtime: The children's view.Educational Research, 32(3), 163-174. Reprinted inM. Woodhead ., P. Light., & R Carr (Eds .) (1991),Growing up in a changing society. London:Routledge! Open University (pp. 224-242).

Blatchford, P., & Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994). Breaktimeand the school:Understanding and changingplay­ground behaviour. London: Routledge.

Blatchford, P., & Sumpner, C. (1996). Changes tobreaktime in primary and secondary schools. FinalReport to Nuffield Foundation.

DES . (1989). Discipline in schools. Report of theCommittee of Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton.London: HMSO.

Grudgeon, E. (1993). Gender implications of play­ground culture. In P.Woods & M. Hammersley(Eds .), Gender and ethnic ity in schools: Ethno­graphic accounts (pp. 11-33). London: Routledge.

Hart, C. (Ed.) . (1993). Children on playgrounds:Research perspectives and applications. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Hartup, W.W. (1992). Friendships and their develop­mental significance. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Child ­hood social development: Contemporaryperspectives (pp. 175-205). Hove : LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Mooney, A, Creeser, R , & Blatchford, P. (1991).Children's views on teasing and fighting in juniorschools. Educational Research, 33(2), 103-112.

Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1969). Children's games in streetandplayground. London: Oxford University Press.

Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R (1987). Peer relations andlater personal adjustment: Are low-accepted chil­dren at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357-389.

Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). School recessand playgroundbehaviour: Educational and developmental roles.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Pellegrini, AD., & Smith, P.K (1993). School recess:Implications for education and development. Re­view ofEducational Research, 63(2), 51-67.

Price , V. (1994). 'The best part of the school day ': Agender and agestudy oflunch break in a secondaryschool. MA in Education (Psychology) Report,Institute of Education, University of London.

Sluckin,A (1981). Growing up in the playground: Thesocialdevelopmentofchildren. London : Routledge& Kegan Paul.

Smith,P.K (1994). What children learn from playtime,and what adults learn from it. In P.Blatchford & S.Sharp (Eds.), Breaktime and the school: Under­standing and changing playground behaviour(pp. 36-48). London: Routledge.

Sutton-Smith, B. (1982). A performance theory ofpeerrelations . In KM. Borman (Ed.), The social life ofchildren in a changing society. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tizard, B., Blatchford, P., Burke, J ., Farquhar, C., &Plewis, I. (1988). Young children at school in theinner city. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. (1993). Asurvey of the natureand extentofbully/victim problems injunior/middleand secondary schools. Educational Research, 35 ,3-25.

24