dissertation on outdoor play

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education

Introduction, outdoor pedagogy.

• Children’s Development and Learning through Outdoor Play
• Play-Space Design
• Forest Preschool and Nature Connections
• Outdoor Play and Sustainability

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Gender, Power, and Politics in the Academy
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• Non-Formal & Informal Environmental Education
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education by Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér , Sue Elliott LAST MODIFIED: 24 March 2021 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0273

Play in early childhood education is foundational, and outdoor play in particular offers unique learning and development opportunities. Outdoor play in early childhood education has significant historical legacies that have been somewhat eroded in the 20th century with the advent of manufactured play equipment, indoor screen-based technologies, and “top down” curriculum priorities. More recently, a reinvigoration of outdoor play has been inspired by the widely perceived Western need to connect children with nature: perhaps, nature as the “cure all” for the 21st-century lifestyles of many children. Outdoor play also aligns with the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child to play, to experience nature, and, in the longer term, to mitigate global sustainability concerns. In early childhood education, indoor and outdoor play spaces must be considered as equally valid learning environments. Outdoor play may occur in center-based play spaces or beyond in local natural environments such as forests or beaches. Yet, too often, outdoor environments are limited or lacking in increasingly urbanized cities. Outdoor play and learning in early childhood education is a multifaceted topic spanning children’s well-being and physical skills, risk management, and play-space design to immersion in natural outdoor settings and teachers’ outdoor pedagogies and dispositions. As a consequence the literature is diverse, but also now expanding as advocacy for children’s outdoor play in natural settings gains momentum. This article outlines research on outdoor play and learning in early childhood education across six key themes. The first theme is Outdoor Pedagogy , and here the focus lies on the history, rationale, and knowledge about outdoor play, as well as the pedagogical role of the teacher. The second theme, Children’s Development and Learning through Outdoor Play , presents studies that reinforce the fundamental importance of outdoor play for children’s development and learning across varied domains. In the third theme, Play-Space Design , the historical beginnings of design are mapped to current design priorities around participatory approaches and natural elements. The fourth theme, Forest Preschool and Nature Connections , captures the rapid international emergence of these varied outdoor programs, the multiple benefits they offer children, and the emergent research. The fifth theme, Risky Play , presents scientific evidence about play, incorporating the risk of physical injury and the benefits of risk as children manage their risky encounters. The final theme, Outdoor Play and Sustainability , outlines possible shifts from anthropocentric being in nature as a play resource only, to a more ethically informed way of being with nature that challenges dominant global paradigms. Over the last century, the field has moved from a dominant romantic ideal of good nature and normative understandings of the child-in-nature to recognizing and examining understandings of power, gender, and dominant Western early childhood pedagogies and ideologies—as well as the anthropocentric relationships of human-nature and the interconnections between the human and nonhuman.

This section traces the historical positioning of outdoor play pedagogy from early pioneers to contemporary research and discourses, and then considers the pedagogical role of the teacher outdoors. Outdoor play has been integral to the history of early childhood education, and Friedrich Froebel emphasized the value of children’s outdoor play and believed outdoor play to be essential for physical, intellectual, and moral development ( Froebel 1995 ). His pedagogical ideas suggested outdoor learning through exploration and play, nature studies, and gardening would instill a sense of responsibility toward living things, based on the earlier work by Rousseau and Pestalozzi. The tradition of outdoor play has had a strong impact on the organization of outdoor pedagogics internationally, as seen in Sandseter Hansen and Hagen 2016 . Since 2000, the normative understandings of outdoor play have prevailed, with romantic views of children, nature, culture, outdoor play, and learning as foundational to a good healthy childhood. Concerns about equality in children’s play and learning have emerged and been challenged as studies have explored power, gender, and culturally specific discourses ( Wattchow and Brown 2011 ) embedded in everyday pedagogy, outdoor play, and learning, ( Änggård 2016 , Taylor 2017 ). As for indoor play and learning, teachers have a critical role interacting with children to scaffold children’s outdoor play and learning, as shown in Wishart and Rouse 2018 . It is essential for teachers to have clear understandings about the affordances and provocations within the outdoor play environment, as described by Waters 2017 . Essentially, children can engage in child-initiated and self-directed play whenever they find themselves outdoors, in playgrounds, woods, parks, or urban walkways. Children’s outdoor play environments are places where they can experience and be exposed to seasonality and all the dynamics and spontaneity of the natural world ( Waller 2007 ). Center outdoor play and learning environments need to be carefully designed, as discussed in Carr and Luken 2014 and Jickling, et al. 2018 (see also Play-Space Design ), and built for child-initiated play scenarios as well as teacher-planned structured play experiences. Research about the pedagogics of outdoor play and learning emphasize the teacher’s role, the organization of the learning environment (playgrounds and natural settings), and the outcomes for children’s development—physical, social, emotional, cognitive, creative, imaginative, and their interconnections with the nonhuman world.

Änggård, Eva. 2016. How matter comes to matter in children’s nature play: Posthumanist approaches and children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies 14.1: 77–90.

DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2015.1004523

In this article, the author employed a posthumanist approach and considered how matter acts in an analysis of children’s play activities in natural environments. The findings demonstrated that in sensorimotor play, matter seems to talk more directly to children’s hands and bodies. In play activities with symbolic content, matter works both directly and through discourses; when objects are given symbolic meaning and in both kinds of play, discursive practices in peer groups are influential.

Carr, Victoria, and Eleanor Luken. 2014. Playscapes: A pedagogical paradigm for play and learning. International Journal of Play 3.1: 69–83.

DOI: 10.1080/21594937.2013.871965

This article discusses outdoor play in the United States, and specifically the play possibilities in a designed playscape with a focus on nature as an alternative to traditional playgrounds. This research indicated that children learn academic concepts, engage in physical activities, investigate scientific principles, and enhance their development in all domains through nature play. Early science and sustainability learning were also promoted.

Froebel, Fredrich. 1995. Människans fostran . Lund: Studentlitteratur.

In this classic book ( The Education of Man ), first published in 1826, Froebel discusses childhood education. He also identifies the fundamental principles upon which he based his kindergarten system. Specifically, the benefits of nature as part of children’s development and learning are discussed.

Jickling, Bob, Sean Blenkinsop, Marcus Morse, and Aage Jensen. 2018. Wild pedagogies: Six initial touchstones for early childhood environmental educators. Australian Journal of Environmental Education 34.2: 159–171.

DOI: 10.1017/aee.2018.19

This article explores six main principles related to early childhood education, with a focus on environmental teaching: (1) agency and the role of nature as co-teacher; (2) wildness and challenging ideas of control; (3) complexity, the unknown, and spontaneity; (4) locating the wild; (5) time and practice; and (6) cultural change.

Sandseter Hansen, Ellen Beate, and Trond L. Hagen. 2016. Scandinavian early childhood education: Spending time in the outdoors. In Routledge International Handbook of Outdoor Studies . Edited by Barbara Humberstone, Heather Prince and Karla A Henderson, 95–102. London and New York: Routledge.

This chapter presents an overview of outdoor play in early childhood education in Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, and Norway). Outdoor play is valued in all three countries as integral to children’s lives and childhood. This is founded in the beliefs of politicians, practitioners, and parents about the benefits of playing and learning in the physical world.

Taylor, Africa. 2017. Beyond stewardship: Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene. Environmental Education Research 23.10: 1448–1461.

DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1325452

The author discusses the implications of the Anthropocene and the need for a paradigm shift in thinking about what it means to be human and about our place and agency in the world. Also discussed is how a common worlds approach (e.g., stewardship pedagogies—learning “with” nonhuman others, rather than “about” them and “on their behalf”) offers an alternative more-than-human relational ontology, inextricably entangled with multiple life-worlds.

Waller, Tim. 2007. The trampoline tree and the swamp monster with 18 heads: Outdoor play in Foundation Stage and Foundation Phase. Education 3–13 35.4: 365–377.

This seminal research paper investigated pedagogy and outdoor play with children aged three to seven years who regularly engaged with natural wild environments. The development and opportunities for children’s play themes and how these impacted on pedagogy in these early years settings were explored in discussion.

Waters, Jane. 2017. Affordance theory in outdoor play. In The SAGE handbook of outdoor play and learning . Edited by Tim Waller, Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér, Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, Libby Lee-Hammond, Kirsti Lekies, and Shirley Wyver. London: SAGE.

In this chapter, the author provides an understanding of “affordance” and how this theoretical concept has been embraced within the field of outdoor play and learning. In addition, it offers the reader a review of the origins and development of the “affordance” concept and consideration of its usefulness within the field. Also considered is how “affordance” as a concept within outdoor play and learning may be developed in the future.

Wattchow, Brian, and Mike Brown. 2011. A pedagogy of place: Outdoor education for a changing world . Clayton, Australia: Monash University Publishing.

The authors scrutinize the underlying assumptions about outdoor education and stress alternative thinking. They offer a broad range of examples of current practices, responding to both local conditions and cultural traditions. They alert to also dealing with substantial social and ecological changes and the need for alternative thinking about outdoor education in a quickly changing world.

Wishart, Llewellyn, and Elizabeth Rouse. 2018. Pedagogies of outdoor spaces: An early childhood educator professional learning journey. Early Child Development and Care 189.14: 1–15.

This article presents how teachers’ understandings and perceptions of natural play learning environments were transformed through a targeted professional learning (PL) project with a focus on the outdoor space. The authors share the story of three educators participating in targeted PL and show that the educators felt more confident in their understandings of the value and benefits of nature-rich outdoor environments to support young children’s active play outdoor.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Research
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Mixed Methods Research
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Politics of Education
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
• 81.177.182.159

• < Previous

Home > Graduate College > Student Work > Dissertations and Theses @ UNI > 928

Dissertations and Theses @ UNI

An investigation of early childhood outdoor play areas and social and emotional play.

Brandy A. Smith , University of Northern Iowa Follow

Availability

Open Access Dissertation

Play environments; Play; Outdoor recreation for children;

The earliest early childhood programs were thought of as a garden for children or kindergarten (Snider, 1900). The father of kindergarten, Frederick Froebel (1885), considered the garden space critical in early childhood programs. While there is an understanding of the importance of outdoor play for young children, many current issues and challenges have drastically reduced the amount of time children spend in the outdoor environment (Kuh, Ponte, & Chau, 2013). Much of the time children do spend outside is devoted to physical movement, often in environments with traditional manufactured playground equipment (Czalczynska-Podolska, 2014). Outdoor play holds potential for multi-dimensional (Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013) and rich play episodes (Luchs & Fikus, 2013).

• What types of emotional affect are observed in traditional and multi-dimensional outdoor play spaces?
• What types of play behaviors are observed in traditional and multi-dimensional outdoor play spaces?

The results of this study indicate that in the multi-dimensional spaces children engaged in more positive play, assessed in both social and emotional domains of development, relative to play in the traditional spaces. Additionally, children engaged in more constructive play behavior in the multi-dimensional spaces, with more functional play occurring in traditional spaces.

The results of this study may help equip teachers and administrators with knowledge that supports the design, construction and use of multi-dimensional outdoor play environments. The findings can also inform future discussions among administrators, legislators and policy makers regarding the policies, procedures and practices that are needed to facilitate high quality outdoor learning spaces.

Year of Submission

Degree name.

Doctor of Education

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

First Advisor

Linda Fitzgerald, Committee Co-Chair

Second Advisor

Mary Donegan-Ritter, Committee Co-Chair

Date Original

Object description.

1 PDF file (viii, 95 pages)

©2018 Brandy A. Smith

File Format

application/pdf

Recommended Citation

Smith, Brandy A., "An investigation of early childhood outdoor play areas and social and emotional play" (2018). Dissertations and Theses @ UNI . 928. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/928

Since January 14, 2019

Included in

Early Childhood Education Commons , Outdoor Education Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Graduate College
• Research and Sponsored Programs
• Rod Library
• University Archives
• Offensive Materials Statement
• UNI ScholarWorks ISSN 2578-3637

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Contact Us

Privacy Copyright

University of Northern Iowa Rod Library 1227 W. 27th Street Cedar Falls, IA 50614-3675 www.library.uni.edu

•   Research@THEA Home
• Atlantic Technological University (Donegal)
• School of Science LYIT
• Theses - Science LYIT

Exploring early year educators' perspectives of outdoors play

Collections

• Theses - Science LYIT [32]

The following license files are associated with this item:

• Creative Commons

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• AIMS Public Health
• v.8(2); 2021

Early childhood educator perceptions of risky play in an outdoor loose parts intervention

Rebecca a spencer.

1 School of Health & Human Performance, Dalhousie University, 6230 South St, PO BOX 15000, Halifax, NS, Canada

Karina Branje

Naomi murray, sara fl kirk.

2 Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University, 1318 Robie St, PO BOX 15000, Halifax, NS, Canada

Michelle R Stone

Free play is important in early childhood and offers physical and mental health benefits. Outdoor play offers opportunity for children to use natural elements and promotes physical activity, among other health benefits, including exploring their environment and taking risks. Risky outdoor play may involve challenges, heights, speed, and the potential for injury, but has been associated with increased physical activity levels, decreased sedentary behaviour, improved mental health, and social benefits. The integration of loose parts, or open-ended, unstructured materials, into play environments, has been associated with positive social behaviours, creativity, and improved problem-solving, confidence, and resilience. As opportunities for risky play in early childhood are determined by adults, including early childhood educators, it is important to understand their perspectives on these types of play. The purpose of this study was to explore early childhood educators' perspectives of risky play, in the context of the Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) intervention. PLEY was a mixed methods study that aimed to evaluate a loose parts intervention in early childcare settings. This paper used Qualitative Description to explore educators' perspectives. Data were collected from 15 focus groups with early childhood educators. Four themes were identified through thematic analysis. The first explains how risky play with loose parts contributes to evolution in educator perceptions; the second describes how educators' perceptions of risk are connected to institutions and systems; the third illustrates how educators developed strategies to facilitate risky play with loose parts; and the fourth demonstrates how educators perceive risky play as beneficial for children's healthy development. This project highlights societal shifts in play and how loose parts and risky play fit into the ongoing evolution in play, from the perspectives of early childhood educators.

1. Introduction

Unstructured, self-directed, free play dominates early childhood and affords children numerous physical, cognitive, and mental health benefits [1] . The outdoor environment offers particular play opportunities and health benefits for children that cannot be replicated indoors [2] . When children play outdoors, they are able to move freely, explore new movements, and exert more energy; they have fewer restrictions in space and more opportunity to use natural elements [1] , [3] , [4] . Children are happier, experience lower levels of anxiety, and have more energy when they play outdoors [5] , [6] ; physical activity levels are also higher, and sedentary behaviour lower, when children are outside compared to inside [4] . Importantly, when children are given the opportunity to play outdoors, they are able to explore their environment and take risks [5] , [7] which is critical for healthy child development [6] .

Risky play is described as thrilling and exciting play, that may involve challenges, heights, speed, tools, rough and tumble play, and testing limits, with the possibility of physical injury [6] , [8] , [9] . Children have an evolutionary need to engage in free, unstructured, exploratory play outdoors [10] . Increasingly, research is showcasing the benefits and importance of risky outdoor play [1] , [4] , [6] , [11] . A review by Brussoni et al. (2015) determined that risky outdoor play has many positive effects on health, including increased physical activity and decreased sedentary behaviour, as well as improved learning, mental and physical health, and increased play time, social interaction and creativity [6] . Through risky play, children have opportunity to be physically active [12] , become more independent, confident, and resilient [5] , and learn important self-regulation skills [1] . Researchers have recently suggested that engagement in risky play can offer opportunity for children to navigate uncertainty and coping, leading to decreased anxiety over time [13] .

While the health, social, and developmental benefits of risky play are becoming understood, there has been historical focus on its potential dangers as well. While risky play is inherently, of course, risky [14] , a recent systematic review indicates that although there has been a focus on danger, the vast majority of risky play incidents are minor [6] . Belief in benefits of risk taking need not lead to complacency in safety, but requires distinguishing between appropriate well-managed risk and danger or hazards [15] . While restrictive risk-reduction strategies might ensure momentary child safety, they may also impede their healthy development [11] , [14] . Children learn from experience, even of injury, and are often able to assess their own risk [14] . Risky play allows children to engage in risk assessment, negotiate risk, and understand their limits [11] . Historically, however, risk has been narrowly defined, with negative connotations, which has contributed to risk-aversive practices and a decline in opportunities for children to engage with risk [1] , [11] , [16] .

The Canadian Position Statement on Active, Outdoor Play states, “access to active play in nature and outdoors - with its risks - is essential for healthy child development”, highlighting both the importance of risky play, and the outdoor context as space for facilitating risky play [1] . Outdoor play lends itself to more risky and adventurous play [13] . Children today spend less time outdoors than their parents did, and more time in institutions and structured activities [1] , [17] . Concerns about safety have limited children's access to risky outdoor play and independent mobility [18] , [19] . Further, children's access to outdoor spaces, with their risks, may be limited by beliefs that children lack the competence to engage with the world alone and are in danger when outside [20] . As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for children to have the opportunity to engage in unstructured, risky, outdoor play.

Risk-taking opportunities in early childhood are also largely influenced by adults, including educators [12] , [13] , [16] . Due to increased emphasis on both safety and school readiness, many early years programs are focusing more on structured activities, and educators are acknowledging ideas around risky play are shifting and evolving [11] , [21] . While early learning environments have been identified as particularly important contexts for children to be able to learn about and engage with risk, navigating risky play in these environments is a complex and multi-faceted issue [11] , [12] , [14] , [17] , [22] , [23] . Research exploring educators' perceptions of risky play suggests that early childhood educators recognize the importance of, but identify barriers, including their understanding of safety, regulations, accountability, and potential litigation, with educators in identified less-litigious contexts being more open to risky play [12] , [15] , [16] , [22] – [26] . Research has begun to identify strategies employed by educators in negotiating risky play, including supervision and observation [6] , [11] , [14] , [15] , [22] , [27] , though further investigation is warranted to support early childhood educators in navigating this complex issue.

There is overlap between risky play, outdoor play, physical activity, and learning environments [13] . Features of the early learning environment influence the extent of available risky play opportunities [28] . Previous research highlights the importance of environments that support children to explore, experiment, accept challenges, and take risks [6] , [11] , [15] , [22] . The integration of loose parts into children's outdoor play environments may facilitate opportunities for risky play. Loose parts are open-ended, manufactured or natural play materials that are moveable and without a dictated purpose, which may include anything from recycled tires and stumps, to car parts or pinecones [29] , [30] . Literature exploring the impact of loose parts play suggests it may promote play participation and engagement, social negotiation, creativity, imagination, problem-solving, and improved physical activity [31] – [37] . Research has also suggested benefits of loose parts play include confidence, leadership, determination, resilience, and enabled risk-taking [38] . Loose parts offer the opportunity for adventurous, risky play, facilitate exploration and creativity, and allow children to direct their environments and play [34] , [39] – [41] . Loose parts have been associated with risky play as they offer opportunity for climbing, swinging, and balancing, and encourage children to test their abilities, and negotiate and assess risk [34] , [39] , [41] . With evidence suggesting outdoor play and learning spaces rarely afford the opportunity for risky play [15] , introducing loose parts may provide that opportunity.

Ecological approaches, or those that situate health across the context of complex, multi-level environments, from the micro to the macro level, are often employed in health promotion research, particularly in relation to physical activity [42] – [46] . Van Rooijen and Newstead (2017), drew upon ecological approaches to explore factors influencing professional attitudes toward risk-taking in childhood play [17] . They developed a model represented by concentric circles, with the practitioner centered, surrounded by increasingly larger levels of influence [17] . Their model includes how children are constructed (for example, as vulnerable and in need of protection); professionals' attitudes, beliefs, and values regarding risk; relationships with parents (requiring collaboration, trust, and communication); regulatory factors like playground restrictions, accountability, and liability; and finally broader cultural factors, including social, political, and environmental concerns [17] . They assert the complex interaction and interdependence of these factors results in significant ongoing conflict, negotiation, and contradictions experienced by childhood practitioners, and suggest future research is warranted to further explore their perspectives [17] .

Expanding on existing literature, we explored the perspectives of early childhood educators who took part in the Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project, an outdoor loose parts play intervention [47] . The purpose of this study was to explore early childhood educators' perspectives of risky play, and more specifically, risky play in the context of this outdoor loose parts play intervention, in alignment with the model proposed by van Rooijen and Newstead (2017) [17] .

2. Materials and methods

2.1. study design.

This paper qualitatively describes educator perceptions of preschooler's risky outdoor play collected as part of a mixed methods intervention study, the Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project (registered ID# ISRCTN14058106). The purpose of the PLEY project was to evaluate a loose parts intervention in regulated early childcare settings, including its impact on physical activity and outdoor play, and educator and parent perceptions. The PLEY intervention involved integrating loose parts (such as rope, milk crates, wood, tires, and buckets) into the outdoor play spaces of 11 childcare centres across Nova Scotia for periods between six and eight months. The project used a socioecological approach and the RE-AIM framework to explore multiple levels of influence and understand the impact of the intervention [46] , [48] . Further details regarding the PLEY project intervention protocol are presented elsewhere [47] .

Qualitative data were collected using Qualitative Description methodology. Qualitative Description is an exploratory methodology which, while less interpretive than other qualitative methodologies, is focused on describing the lived experiences of participants, from their perspectives [49] , [50] . The emphasis on rich description, participant voice, and a tendency to remain close to the data, made Qualitative Description an ideal methodology for this study [49] , [50] .

2.2. Data collection and analysis

Early childhood educators from childcare centres involved in the PLEY intervention were invited to take part in focus groups. Fifteen focus groups took place, nine of which occurred three months following the intervention, and six of which occurred six months following the intervention. Each intervention site was represented in the focus groups and included early childhood educators from a variety of sites, with between three to five educators taking part in each focus group. Focus groups each lasted approximately 45–60 minutes and included questions regarding the intervention, active outdoor play, loose parts, and risk-taking. All focus groups were audio recorded and facilitated by a member of the research team and a notetaker.

Audio data from focus groups were transcribed verbatim, organized using Microsoft Word (version 16.16.3) and imported into QSR NVivo 11 for analysis. Thematic analysis was guided by the methods of Miles and Huberman [51] and Braun and Clarke [52] . Analysis was conducted by research staff and guided by senior members of the research team. Analysis began with research staff reviewing transcripts and identifying codes using open inductive coding. Frequent research team meetings facilitated the collaborative and iterative development of a codebook. Two coders coded each transcript early in analysis in order to facilitate consistency, and once consistent coding was established, remaining transcripts were coded by one member of the research team. Once transcripts were coded, a collaborative process was used to explore relationships between codes and identify trends across the data, in order to generate themes [51] , [52] . Quality and rigour, including dependability, authenticity, and credibility, were facilitated using this collaborative and iterative process, in addition to using peer review, field notes, and memo-ing [53] , [54] . Themes were then examined in consideration of ecological approaches and the model proposed by van Rooijen and Newstead (2017) [17] .

Four themes were identified through Qualitative Description and thematic analysis. The first theme describes how risky play with loose parts uncovers evolution in educator experience, perceptions, and practice; the second theme presents how educators' perceptions of risk are connected to institutions, systems, and discourses of safety; the third theme demonstrates how educators developed strategies to facilitate risky play with loose parts; and the final theme explores how educators perceive risky play as beneficial for children's healthy development.

3.1. Theme 1: Risky play with loose parts uncovers evolution in educator experience, perceptions, and practice

The first theme highlights how risky play and the loose parts intervention brought to light how educators' background, experience, and history contributed to their perceptions. As part of this theme, educators reflected on the historical and societal shifts that have occurred in the way children play. Participants reflected on their own experiences, including where and how they were raised, and played, and how their own experiences contributed to their feelings about risky play. One educator said, for example, “we knew every inch of the woods all through our neighborhood and parents weren't with us, I'm not sure if that happens as much anymore” . They related these perspectives of risky play to their work as early childhood educators, with one saying, “when you've been in the business for so long you're ingrained of just keep them safe, make sure they're safe, the times are changing where risk is part of their play now” , suggesting that attitudes around risky play have changed. One participant noted the loose parts intervention helped reveal this evolution in perspectives regarding risky play, saying “perhaps before there wasn't enough risk taking, [...] I started to say to myself, I think we better stop saying, ‘be careful, be careful’ all the time” noting the loose parts intervention as helpful in facilitating reflection on risky play.

Educators also reflected upon how they each have their own individual comfort level with risky play. Many participants described how they were more comfortable with risky play outside than inside. One said they were “more free with the risk-taking outside” , while another said, “when they're outside they have the space to explore, they have the room to just run and jump” . Another common perspective was that educators were mindful of the responsibility associated with caring for other people's children. One said, “it's someone else's child and you want them to be in one piece at the end of the day” . Several participants noted they were more comfortable with risky play with their own children, with one saying, “I don't want other people's kids to get hurt, but like, I let my own kid do something and they get hurt I’d be like well you know that's my kid” . Some participants reflected on how their own upbringing impacted their perspective on risky play, with one saying, “as a child I did everything so I'm able to let them” . Similarly, another participant said, “we had strict rules of what happened in our house and it wasn't the risk play” , and one considered, “I wonder if my opinions would change if I was more of a risk taker as a child” .

Educators also noted that they were progressively becoming more comfortable with risky play, and that this was facilitated by their participation in the outdoor loose parts play intervention. Educators relayed that systemic, environmental, and cultural shifts were happening regarding risky play, in association with the intervention. One said, for example, “I think there's a change, there's an awareness that wasn't there before” , while another said, “we're seeing a shift within our own organization” . Connecting to the earlier theme of confidence, a participant said, about children's risk-taking with loose parts, “it's building the children's skills and confidence and then as that's happening, yours is also being built which means that there's this beautiful sort of mutual respect” . Similarly, a participant said, “the more educated you get about it [...] you feel more confident in yourself to let your children take the risks” . Others discussed how their participation in the outdoor loose parts play intervention changed “our mindset” or “ changed my whole perception of risk” . To sum, one educator said, “we see the benefits of it now, not the scariness of it” . Finally, some participants noted the impact of the intervention more broadly, saying, for example, “I feel like being a part of this has allowed the company to loosen up a little bit” , indicating that the outdoor loose parts play intervention contributed to changing perceptions of risky play institutionally. Educators recognized shifts in how risky play was perceived over time, that were contributed to by their own history, education, and experiences. The outdoor loose parts play intervention offered an opportunity for further learning and experiences, contributed to shifts in educator perceptions of risky play, and increased comfort in risky play.

3.2. Theme 2: Educator perceptions of risky play are tied to institutions and systems

Educators in this project also connected their perceptions of risky play to institutions and systems, and broad discourses around responsibility and safety. As part of this theme, educators articulated their fear of children getting hurt and being responsible for that injury. All participants discussed situations and experiences where they had experienced fear, worry, and anxiety associated with risky play. One said, “as a teacher you just tend to feel responsible” , a sentiment that was common among the educators in this project. Connecting to the above subtheme around individual comfort with risk, one participant said risky play had taken them “out of my comfort zone for risk because I think of the worst scenario, not the best scenario” . Others connected this to the above subthemes of perceptions of risky play changing over time, with one saying, “I've been in the field for a long time [...] years ago it was ‘no you can't do that’ [...] it's a hard thing to let go of [...] nobody wants to see children be hurt but the more you let them do things you realize that yah it's risky but it's not usually that bad” . One participant said that their role is about “keeping everybody safe [...] I want to support the risky play, but at the same time we have to be careful” , which was aligned with many participants who noted that there is a balance to be found between encouraging risk and ensuring safety.

Closely connected to the fears and worries that come with risky play, educators discussed their perceptions of rules, regulations, reporting, and responsibility. A common perception was that “with the risk taking comes a lot of paperwork too” . Many participants discussed the protocols and requirements associated with an injury. One said, “you're writing the accident report in your head” in regard to watching risky play take place, while another said, “I mean every child's going to have a fall, every child is going at some point [...] you need a band-aid [...] but apparently now it's like any mark [...] it needs to be written up” , noting a bit of fatigue with reporting, but also acknowledging that injuries may happen in risky play. Others acknowledged the obligations around risk to be important, with one saying, “the policy is about accountability [...] our actions reflect on the centre” . Other participants reflected on the importance of communication, saying, “that's the way that administration would look at it, ‘how are you going to do this safely? Tell me why you want to do it’” , highlighting the connection between their perception of risk and that of the administration.

3.3. Theme 3: Educators developed strategies to facilitate risky play with loose parts

Through this project, educators also reflected on the strategies they developed to support risky play and the use of loose parts. Observation was a key strategy noted by many of the participants in facilitating risky play. Educators discussed the importance of stepping back, staying close without interrupting, and letting children lead. One participant said, “for me it was just the teaching strategy of letting her take the risk and letting her come to her own conclusions” . Another said, “If you're scared they're going to be scared, so just, you know, be nearby and let them try” . Educators also often discussed how they speak to children engaging in risky play. One noted the importance of being “more mindful of what I'm saying to them in those moments and if I need to say anything at all” and the value of “being supportive and not restrictive” . Many discussed the strategy of asking questions, with one saying, “I've been trying to steer away from ‘be careful’ and kind of phrase, like, more open-ended questions, like ‘what would happen if you step your foot there?’” . Others discussed the importance of providing encouragement, with one saying, “I wanted to let her be independent, let her be creative and definitely gave her words of encouragement, like ‘this is awesome [...] look at how you're balancing’” . Finally, some participants discussed switching out with one another as educators, with one saying, “maybe I'm going to step back because I know you're a little more comfortable and you can facilitate this” , acknowledging again that individual educators will have varying comfort with risk.

Relatedly, educators mentioned the importance of communication in facilitating risky play and outdoor loose parts play. As mentioned, educators have individual experience, background, and comfort levels with risky play, and communicate with one another to ensure educators feel comfortable supervising each activity. Others discussed how risky play warranted communication when there were staff changes, with one saying, “we've just recently had new staff that have come in so we kind of had to go through the whole process all over again explaining it and expectations but also like comfort levels and kind of where we're at with risk taking” . Additionally, many participants discussed the importance of talking to parents about risky play. One said, “we have lots of parent nights dedicated to it [...] we do try to really open up that as a talking point with our families so they're comfortable with things that we're doing with their children” , while another said, “talking it through with our parents and our families is really important because I don't want them to just walk in and think it's like [...] we're not being careful or thoughtful, that we're not being intentional, because we know the benefits” . Others connected this more directly to the loose parts intervention, noting that “it created a dialogue” and “gave us more tools to go and say this is why we're doing this [...] And how we're going to do this effectively” , demonstrating the importance of clear communication with families regarding risky play and loose parts.

3.4. Theme 4: Educators perceive risky play with loose parts as beneficial for children's healthy development

The final theme describes how educators perceived risky play as beneficial for children's healthy development. Participants discussed their perceptions that children should take risks and want to take risks, and frequently discussed how risks come with rewards. One said, for example, “they're up so high and they could fall down and hurt themselves, but there's so much more that they learn from it” . Some described risky play as a natural and important part of healthy development, saying, “it's part of growing up” . Others noted how children wanted to engage in this type of play, with one saying, “I think it was just, it was something they craved, like they kind of needed to explore it, they needed to see if they could” . In addition, educators noted that risky play was perceived as “thrilling to them” and that it made “outside time more exciting” . Participants discussed the importance of boundary-pushing and thrill-seeking associated with risky play. One educator said, for example, “they're pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go” . Another participant said, “it's also the forbidden fruit, my mother doesn't let me do that, but I can do that at the daycare” , describing their perception of how children enjoyed risk-taking opportunities.

Educators also described their perception that risky play promoted problem-solving, social skills, and confidence. One participant noted that, “the big improvement I think has been the children, you know who are really now taking more risks, and using a lot more problem solving” . Participants also discussed how the children self-assessed risks and developed risk-management skills. One said, for example, “the class independently decided that's too high, we should not jump from here” , while another said, “I think they know like where their limits are” . Many educators discussed their perception that risky play promoted confidence. One said, for example, “you really saw the child sort of push themselves out of their comfort zone” , while another said, “I think the more risk they take, the more confidence they have” . This confidence was also associated with pride and was perceived to have long-term health benefits: “it's a sense of pride, it's a sense of accomplishment and that's huge cause [...] that's what they see in the future and them taking risks in adulthood” .

Participants also mentioned the value of risky play for supporting children's physical health and well-being. One participant noted that risk taking during outdoor loose parts play allowed children to “really push themselves physically” , and how, “over time they're just taking bigger risks, using more muscles you know, using different muscles” . By taking risks, children were developing critical fundamental movement skills, such as coordination and balance, and improving muscular strength and endurance: “ you can really see that their coordination is improving, their balance is improving” ; “his muscle development was not quite there [...] and his parents had mentioned that he had come a long way [...] and he was enjoying the experience .

Finally, there seemed to be consensus among participants that the loose parts intervention provided more opportunity for risky play. One educator said, “I notice a lot more of that with the loose parts, like the risk-taking opportunities are awesome” . Another added, about the loose parts intervention, “it really added to our play and to their risks” . Others discussed how children were more ready and prepared to take risks, with one saying, “they were more eager to take risks [...] like after using these materials in different ways, they were more eager” , and another agreeing, “they're taking more risks than they would have, or higher risks than they would have” . Regarding the loose parts, another participant said, “it gives them the opportunity to scale their risk, depending on what they're comfortable with” .

4. Discussion and conclusions

Through Qualitative Description, we identified four themes that can be analyzed using an ecological lens, specifically, the model developed by van Rooijen and Newstead (2017) to explore professional attitudes toward risky play [17] . The first theme highlights how risky play with loose parts contributes to an evolution in educator perceptions. This theme, emphasizing educators' perspectives regarding risky play, is well-aligned with van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) assertion of the importance of professional attitudes toward risk [17] . The second theme, demonstrating how educator perceptions relate to systems and institutions supports van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) suggestion of a layer of influence related to regulatory factors [17] . Our third theme, illustrating how educators developed strategies to facilitate risky play intersects with van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) identification of the importance of relationships with parents, in that our work highlights the importance of communication [17] . Our fourth and final theme, regarding how educators perceive risky play as important for healthy child development aligns with multiple layers of van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model, including professional attitude toward risk, constructions of the child, and cultural factors [17] . Interestingly, each of our themes is further intertwined with both the inner layer, focused on the constructions of the child, and the outer layer, focused on cultural factors, of van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model, highlighting the interrelatedness of these levels. In each of our themes, it is evident that children are constructed both as in need of protection, but also as having agency, developing skills, and learning to negotiate risk. Cultural factors are emphasized throughout each theme as well, with our participants noting broad cultural shifts and evolution in play over time and discussing wide social and political discourse around safety and regulation. This study expands upon previous research by including the perceptions of educators on risky play within the context of a childcare-based outdoor loose parts play intervention.

Through this project, educators reflected on personal and professional development in association with risky play. Educators noted differences between themselves and their colleagues regarding risk taking, acknowledging the influence of their own upbringing and personal experiences. This is important, as educators' perceptions of outdoor play, specifically their beliefs and personal experiences, can influence their teaching and practice, as highlighted in van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model which devotes a layer of influence related to professionals' attitudes toward risk [17] , [55] . Relatedly, educators identified a societal shift over time toward focusing on structured activities and increased supervision, resulting in decreased opportunity for risky play. This is aligned with other research that indicates children's participation in physical activity is shifting from unsupervised and unstructured outdoor and risky play to more structured and supervised activities [1] , [4] , [17] , [56] , [57] . This is further aligned with van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model which suggests the importance of both regulatory and cultural factors [17] This finding suggests childcare settings have a unique opportunity to provide children with an environment that allows them to explore and challenge themselves through risky play. Importantly, the fact that educators recognize this shift suggests that they understand their role in supporting quality play experiences.

Educators also reflected on how their participation in the outdoor loose parts play intervention improved their comfort with risky play. Through this intervention, educators had the opportunity to develop strategies that facilitated their engagement in risky play. Educators noted observation as a key strategy in supporting risky play. They also discussed the importance of communication regarding risky play and being mindful of how risk is framed. This aligns with strategies suggested when assessing risk taking during outdoor play, including considering both the child's and educators' comfort and abilities [58] . This is also aligned with how van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model suggests the importance of professionals' relationships with parents, which requires clear communication, collaboration, and trust [17] . Similarly, educators have emphasized the importance of understanding their own limits when it comes to assessing risk-taking during outdoor play and how this may sometimes limit children's participation in risky play [17] , [58] . Together, these strategies highlight how educators have to negotiate risk taking in the childcare setting.

Through this project, educators also discussed how supporting risky play in the childcare setting comes with challenges and responsibilities. Although educators recognized the importance of risky play, they reflected on the need to balance risk and safety. Educators did express fear and anxiety associated with children injuring themselves through this type of play in the childcare setting. A growing culture of child safety with risk mitigation strategies and childcare centre regulations have impacted the way early childhood educators practice and support risky play; Educators voicing these concerns, and the fears of being perceived as irresponsible, is consistent with previous literature [15] , [23] . This is closely connected to van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model's highlighting of regulatory factors as influential in how professionals negotiate risky play [17] . Although participating educators discussed their comfort with their own children engaging in risky play, they voiced how this level of comfort changes with other children due to centre policies and associated responsibilities. This finding suggests regulatory factors can hinder the way they support risk taking in the childcare environment. Educators also discussed the importance of communication with families about risky play, highlighting the need for additional strategies to support this type of communication. This finding is emphasized in the literature where communication with parents, and the need for training to support this dialogue, is critical in order for educators to practice in a way that is meaningful and beneficial for children [59] – [61] , and again echoed in the layer of van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model emphasizing professional relationships with parents [17] .

In this study, educators discussed how risk-taking in outdoor play is perceived as fun and thrilling, and how they believed this type of play was rewarding and important. This finding suggests that risky play is generally perceived positively and was encouraged in the participating child-care settings. This is an important finding, as educators' attitudes toward risky influences their practice [17] , [23] . Likewise, educators discussed how risky play benefits important aspects of child development such as enhanced fundamental movement skills, improved problem-solving, social skills, and confidence, and enhanced self-assessment. These findings are consistent with the literature and suggest that risky play not only benefits children's development, but participating educators are able to connect risky play to pedagogy [1] , [4] , [6] . This implies that although perceptions of risky play may differ among educators, the idea of risky play is generally perceived positively by educators and is seen as a mechanism for developing various physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional benefits.

Educators also discussed how they perceived the loose parts intervention to have a positive impact on the way children engaged in risky play. Educators described how the intervention facilitated children's physical activity and physical literacy and contributed to the development of fundamental movement skills such as balance and coordination, while also improving confidence. This finding is aligned with literature that suggests loose parts diversify the play experience and afford more opportunity to engage in risky play, through physical activities like climbing and balancing, as well as through controlling their environments, and allowing children to explore [15] , [34] , [39] – [41] .

Important connections can be drawn between the themes identified in this project and across the levels of the model developed by van Rooijen and Newstead (2017) [17] . Across the themes, educators reflected on their own background, upbringing, and experiences. These reflections offer valuable insight into how educators construct their perceptions regarding risk. Educator beliefs significantly influence how they practice in the early childcare setting, with research indicating the belief systems of educators are informed by their own personal experiences and serve as a mechanism for how they make teaching-related decisions [62] . In fact, research has found educators' beliefs and personality type to influence teaching practice more than factors such as centre resources [63] . Across themes, educators also discussed societal shifts around play, and their perceptions that over time and generationally, we have become more risk averse regarding play. In this project, educators noted that the loose parts intervention served as a facilitator for an alternative shift that supported the adoption of risky play. These cross-theme findings also cross the levels of van Rooijen and Newstead's (2017) model, highlighting the importance of the construction of children, professional attitudes toward risk, and cultural factors. Future research should continue to explore societal shifts in play, how perceptions of risk relate to those shifts, and how loose parts may contribute to these perceptions.

Through this project we were able to explore educators' perceptions of risky play in the context of an outdoor loose parts intervention. Educators seem to recognize and appreciate the value of healthy risk taking during outdoor play for child development, and how loose parts materials provide a mechanism for children to explore and challenge themselves. Educators discussed how they negotiate risky play, and shared strategies they use to ease. Future studies are needed to further explore, evaluate, and assess the strategies used by educators here, to determine their efficacy in facilitating risky play, and to identify additional strategies. Future research should also further explore how risky play is communicated in childcare settings: with and between educators and administration, with parents and families, and with children.

This project has several strengths and limitations. A strength of this project is its contribution to the literature by adding a qualitative exploration of early childhood educators' perceptions of outdoor risky play in the context of a loose parts intervention. An additional strength is its use of an ecological framework and the recently developed model of van Rooijen and Newstead (2017) [17] . A further strength is that the work was conducted by a diverse interdisciplinary team with expertise in the use of loose parts in childcare settings. An important limitation of this work is the limited diversity represented in the childcare centres. While childcares from across Nova Scotia were included, they are only representative of regulated childcare centres, and therefore do not include the perspectives of other forms of childcare, limiting the diversity of perspectives that might be included, especially those which may serve historically under-represented groups. Additionally, while educator perceptions make a valuable contribution to the literature, this study is limited by exclusively including educator perspectives, and not including the child perspective as well. Future research should explore child perspectives of risky play and the use of loose parts.

Through this study, we found that risky play with loose parts contributes to an ongoing evolution in educator perceptions, and that those educator perceptions are intertwined with institutional, systemic, and cultural influences. We also found that educators facilitate risky play with loose parts by learning and developing new strategies, and that they perceive risky play to be an important part of healthy child development. Sharing these insights with other early years stakeholders may provide a better understanding on the benefits of risky play and the associated contribution offered by loose parts materials.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Lawson Foundation (Outdoor Play Strategy). We would like to acknowledge all of the early childhood educators and centres for participating in this work, and the contributions of the Healthy Populations Institute.

Conflict of interest: All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Rocking and Rolling. Fresh Air, Fun, and Exploration: Why Outdoor Play Is Essential for Healthy Development

You are here

Coteachers Marissa and Kate are out for a walk around the block with a small group of 18- to 30-month-olds. The sky is a brilliant blue and there are bright green grass shoots and spring leaves to touch and smell. Two-and-a-half-year-old Aisha approaches Marissa, eyes shining, clutching a treasured object in her hand. She uncurls her fingers to reveal an acorn. “Look!” she says. “What dis?”

“Wow! That’s an acorn. It fell from the tree last fall,” Marissa answers. “If you plant it in the ground, it will grow into a big tree.”

Aisha discovers two more acorns and shares them with Brady, who is 2 years old. Kate offers Aisha and Brady small bags they can use to collect more acorns and other interesting objects they find during the walk. The group’s progress around the block is slow as the children find twigs, old brown leaves, new green leaves, and more acorns to bring back to the center.

It can be challenging to take young children outside—from naps to mealtimes and sunscreen to mittens, a trip outdoors might feel like too much hassle. Additionally, play outside may seem unruly, overwhelming, or lacking in learning opportunities. But outdoor play is worth the time and effort.

What are the benefits of outdoor play?

1. it invites children to learn science.

As seen in the opening vignette, you don’t have to plan for science lessons when you take young children outside. Children are natural explorers and discoverers, and you can bring whatever interests them back to your early childhood setting for further exploration. By turning their questions into group inquiry projects, you’ll soon have several starting points for emergent curriculum. An acorn won’t grow quickly enough to satisfy a curious child—it takes two months for the first shoots to appear! But there are faster-growing seeds (peas, green beans, corn) perfect for classroom experiments. Picture books like  The Carrot Seed , by Ruth Krauss, and  Growing Vegetable Soup , by Lois Ehlert, add early literacy to the mix while building children’s vocabulary and knowledge.

2. It creates opportunities for social interaction and collaboration

One-on-one interactions, like the conversation between Aisha and Marissa in the vignette, help build a foundation for future teacher relationships that will occur when children enter school. Marissa’s interest and delight in Aisha’s discovery reinforce Aisha’s knowledge that she’s important and her ideas matter. Outdoor play also provides a chance to practice social and emotional skills with other children, including problem solving, turn taking, encouragement, self-control, safe risk taking, and following the rules of a game. And outdoor play provides opportunities to develop empathy; for example, imagine one child encouraging another to try the slide or a child comforting another who has fallen down while running.

3. It promotes physical health

The obesity rate for US children ages 2 to 5 is 14 percent, and it rises to over 40 percent for middle-aged adults, leading to an increased risk of health problems like diabetes and heart disease (Hales et al. 2017). That’s one reason why the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a “prescription for play” at every well-child visit through age 2 (Yogman et al. 2018, 10) and Nemours Health and Prevention Services recommends daily, supervised outdoor time for children from birth to age 5 (Hughes 2009). Specifically, Nemours calls for toddlers to have at least 30 minutes of structured (adult-led) physical activity and at least 60 minutes of unstructured (child-led) physical activity each day. Outdoor play is a great way to model the joy of physical activity. When children run, jump, climb, throw and kick balls, and ride toys that require balance, they also build gross motor skills and start developing a habit of being active.

4. It invites new contexts for learning

You can use outdoor spaces to create intentional learning activities that are difficult to execute inside. There’s great value in looking at books about nature in the shade of a tree, pouring (and splashing!) water at an outdoor water table, building extra large structures in the sandbox or mud, collecting leaves, watching a parade of ants, and playing pretend on a playground structure. To make the most of your outdoor time, think about creative, joyful, engaging activities that capitalize on children’s need to move and enthusiasm for doing so, while also achieving other curricular goals. For example, you might create a sorting game in which children have to find all the yellow balls and all the red balls hidden on the playground, then sort them into two groups.

5. It promotes better sleep

A study of 2- to 5-year-olds showed that children who play outdoors sleep better at night (Deziel 2017). This may be due to the physical activity, stress reduction, and exposure to natural light that come with playing outdoors (Coyle 2011). You may want to share this information with families—a tired, happy child is one who sleeps well!

6. It gives children a chance to take appropriate risks

Toddlers are all about challenging themselves to do new and difficult things—pet a dog, climb some stairs, venture a little farther away from a caregiver and then return. Playing outside provides opportunities to run faster, climb higher, jump farther, and more—all under the watchful eye of a caring adult.

7. It may lead to better learning outcomes once children return to other activities

Research shows that older children are more attentive and productive in the classroom when recess—indoors or outdoors—is part of the school day (Council on School Health 2013). If older children need a brain break, it follows that younger ones do too.

8. It supports STEM skills

Remember making mud pies and forts when you were a child? The outdoors is the perfect place for big (and messy) projects that support STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) skills, such as building, sand and water play, and investigations of the natural world. Almost any indoor activity can be brought outside for further exploration.

9. It anchors children to the real world

Talking with a child about an illustration of a bird in a picture book is good, but sharing the book and the experience in the real world is even better: “I wonder what that robin is looking for in the grass? Oh, look! It got a worm!” Children develop more comprehensive knowledge about their world when they have a chance to watch, observe, predict, and learn in the moment.

Playing outdoors has benefits for both young children and educators. It’s a refreshing pause in the day’s schedule—time set aside to look and listen, explore and observe, move and let loose. Time spent outside can lead to better physical and mental health, improved sleep, and cognitive, social, and emotional gains for young children. Ensuring that outdoor play is an integral part of your child care and education setting’s daily schedule supports early learning across all domains and unleashes a whole lot of joy—for you and for children!

Think about it

• Reflect on your feelings about being outside. What do you enjoy or dislike about being outdoors?
• What are your goals for outdoor play? (These can differ from day to day, depending on children’s needs, the season, and the spaces and materials you have access to for structured versus unstructured activities.)
• What routines can you create that will assist you in getting children outdoors? (Some programs have outdoor time at the beginning and end of every day so they don’t have to deal with coats and hats in the middle of the day.)
• What classroom/programmatic roadblocks exist that may make it harder to get children outdoors? How might you tackle them?
• How can you share children’s outdoor activities and accomplishments with their families?
• Mix it up: provide a balance of structured play (in which you choose the goals and initiate activities that will meet them) and unstructured play.
• When the weather outside is frightful . . . dress appropriately and make it part of the adventure! For example, observe the sound and smell of rain, the splashes boots make in puddles, and the way rainwater collects on leaves. (If possible, have some extra outdoor gear on hand for children who are not adequately dressed for the conditions.)
• The world is your canvas! Try drawing on the sidewalk with chalk, or use rollers or big brushes to paint with water.
• Start a collection: have children collect specific objects—leaves, pinecones, rocks, or whatever interests them. Use these items for sorting activities when you return to the classroom. Items can be organized by shape, color, or texture.
• Document discoveries: snap photos or take video of children’s discoveries and experiments in the outdoor “classroom.” Post photos or videos in a place where children and their families can see them. Create a classroom book that shows what children are doing and learning outside.

Council on School Health. 2013. “The Crucial Role of Recess in School.” Policy statement.  Pediatrics  131 (1).  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/183 .

Coyle, K.J. 2011.  Green Time for Sleep Time: Three Ways Nature and Outdoor Time Improve Your Child’s Sleep: A Guide for Parents and Caregivers . Reston, VA: National Wildlife Federation. www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Be%20Out%20There/BeOutThere_GreenTimeforSleepTi... .

Deziel, S. 2017. “5 Reasons Why Every Kid Should Play Outside.”  Today’s Parent . www.todaysparent.com/kids/kids-health/unexpected-benefits-of-outdoor-play/ .

Hales, C.M., M.D. Carroll, C.D. Fryar, & C.L. Ogden. 2017. “Prevalence of Obesity Among Adults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016.” NCHS Data Brief #288. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).  www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf .

Hughes, D. 2009.  Best Practices for Physical Activity: A Guide to Help Children Grow Up Healthy for Organizations Serving Children and Youth . Newark, DE: Nemours Health and Prevention Services.  www.nemours.org/content/dam/nemours/www/filebox/service/preventive/nhps/paguidelines.pdf .

Yogman, M., A. Garner, J. Hutchinson, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2018. “The Power of Play: A Pediatric Role in Enhancing Development.” Clinical Report.  Pediatrics  142 (3): 1–18. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/142/3/e20182058... .

Rocking & Rolling is written by infant and toddler specialists and contributed by ZERO TO THREE, a nonprofit organization working to promote the health and development of infants and toddlers by translating research and knowledge into a range of practical tools and resources for use by the adults who influence the lives of young children. The column can be found online at  NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/yc/columns .

Kathy Kinsner  has been a reading specialist, an Emmy-winning producer on the PBS series Reading Rainbow , and the person in charge of curriculum development at nonprofit Roads to Success. She has a master’s in education from Bowling Green State University and a master’s in television, radio, and film from Syracuse University. Currently, she is the senior manager of parenting resources at ZERO TO THREE.

Vol. 74, No. 2

Print this article

Literature Review on the Role of Outdoor Play in Children’s Learning

This literature view will disseminate the eminent viewpoints which surround outdoor play. A brief synopsis of the definition of outdoor play and its perceived importance in supporting children’s social development will be discussed parallel to a strong critical analysis of previous research. Other factors involved in the provision of outdoor play such as time and access to facilities, resources and employees’ perception and training in the outdoor environment will also be segmented according to their importance in outdoor play.

Recently, the government has placed an emphasis on outdoor play and its role in children’s learning with the formulation of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfES, 2007) and more predominantly with the refinement of the EYFS (DfES,2012). Rivkin (1998) verbalises that one of the main advantages of using the outdoor environment is that it provides children with the space in which they can move without the constraints of internal environments and it has been described by some commentators as one of the most natural and powerful modes of learning for young children (Bilton, 2002). Bilton (2001) philsophises that children appear to love the outdoors, an phenomena which practitioners can sometimes overlook. This does seem to induce the question of whether practitioners’ perceptions have an effect on children’s experiences in the outdoors. Woonton (2006) expands on this sentiment as he claims that, if given the choice, children prefer to be outside for a large proportion of their time. The potential of the outdoor environment for supporting children’s learning is expressed in the current EYFS (DfES, 2012) which makes the point that in the outdoors childrens’ social relationships can be developed in an environment that offers scope for communication through the triad of action, movement and language. Furthermore, the deliberation in using the equipment and discussion and co-operation that comes through this puts children in certain situations where they can appreciate and respect the needs of others, which will help make them better people in the long term.

The authoritative Plowden Report (CACE, 1967) suggested that play is the main way of learning in the formative stage of a child’s life and that in play ‘…children gradually develop concepts of casual relationships, the power to discriminate, to make judgments, to analyse and to synthesise, to imagine and formulate’ (CACE, 1967, p193). Additionally, the Rumbold report (DfES,1990) makes the assertion that children need to talk, play and have primary, authentic learning experiences as these are all essential for a child’s progression in life and academic skills. All of these government reports seem to convey the need for outdoor play as vehicle to develop children holistically. Moyles (2005) identifies that children’s emotional and social understanding is facilitated through outdoor play in terms of the attributes that children display in it such as: confidence, co-operation, spirituality and solitude. Developing children’s confidence correlates to the diaspora of challenges which are provided in the outdoor environment that allow children to test themselves at their own level and make continuous progression. Vygotsky (1978) construes this as children working within the parameters of their Zone of Potential Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). Furthermore, Wood and Attfield (2005) make a discursive analysis of the importance of the development of social skills and emotional literacy within play as it plays a part in developing children’s self-awareness, self-esteem and confidence all of which are facets which underpin effective learning (Roberts, 2002).

History of Outdoor play

Outdoor play is a key factor in a multitude of aspects of children’s basic development. Pioneers and proponents of nursery education such as Froebel (1887), MacMillian (1930) and Isaacs (1932) all argued that early years education should entail active engagement with the outdoors. Forbes (2004) defines the key contexts of play as  physical, social and symbolic  which help us to carry out observational and discourse analysis of children’s speech and actions. Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky (1978) viewed play as a way of amalgamating a child’s learning which helps them make sense of the world. Vygotsky (1978) emphasised the importance of social interaction with other participants engaged in play. The pertinence of movement and social interaction has been widely recognised by Vygotsky (1978), Wells (1987) and Trevarthen (1994) who see social interaction and communication in the foreground of a child’s development. These viewpoints concur Wood’s (1988) theory that children are novices and adults the experts, therefore children need the opportunity to experiment and discover new ideas. Bilton (1998)observes that the outdoor environment has the potential to offer life-size social interactions and dialogue where children can  assume different roles and footings in conversations and establish appropriate tenors between themselves.

Forest schools

Forest Schools encourage children to go beyond the boundaries which they are normally faced with in a classroom environment (Doyle, 2006). Moyles (2007) extends this sentiment by advocating that practitioners still need to enhance their understanding of outdoor provision and that outdoor spaces still tend to be adult-built with lots of ‘stuff’ (Maynard and Waters, 2006). This illustrates the need for children to be actively involved in the planning and decision making processes of using the outdoors. Research on childrens’ play in kindergardens in Norway (Fjortoft, 2004) ascertained that children who experience wild and rough terrain with lots of undulated surfaces, with trees to climb and bushes to hide in, engaged more frequently in sustained collaborative play than in conventional play areas. This accurately summarises the ethos of forest schools of using the natural environment as a resource to facilitate a child’s development. Furthermore, the findings from Waller’s (2007) research, which examined the opportunities for social development when children were given the freedom to play in a natural environment, were in concordance with the sentiments expressed above.

Some researchers are of the disposition that the outdoor environment evokes a richer, more complex use of lexis within children. A primary function of playing with others is to develop language and interpersonal skills (Wood and Bennett, 1997) which collaborates with the concept of outdoor play as it allows children to play imaginatively with their peers. A study commissioned by the Foundation for Outdoor Adventure (Barrett and Greenway,1995) found that outdoor adventure experiences can enhance interpersonal relationships and improve socialisation as it facilities co-operation and group bonding among peers. An eminent report by OFSTED , Learning outside the classroom: How far should you go?  (2008) evaluated the impact of learning outside found that when planned and implemented well, outdoor provision contributed significantly to improving pupils’ personal, social and emotional development. Furthermore, it is often the natural elements of the outdoors which are conductive to social development (Fjortoft, 2001) such as the slopes, vegetation and biodiversity.

Role of the Adult

With determining the role of the adult within the outdoor, Woods and Atfield (2005) suggest that it is to facilitate an environment which offers abundant opportunities for children to grow and progress. Ouvry (2003) argues that an adult should be as active as they are in an indoor environment to allow the children to harness as much as possible from the sessions. Others claim that to fully foster the use of the outdoors, children should be allowed to work autonomously in constructing things by choosing equipment from ‘sheds, baskets and boxes’ as ‘they will always use it more imaginatively than if we decide for them’ (Featherstone and Bayley, 2002). Bruce (1996) strongly indicates that both indoor and outdoor areas need to foster children’s creativity in developing their own play and that it should be set up for children to make their own decisions.

Moyles (2005) argues that the responsibility of the adult should be to provide real activities which children can perform in the outdoor environment that give them a chance to ask authentic questions, collaborate with their peers and the co-construction of ideas between children and adults. There are an innumerable amount of ways in which adults can model activities for children; such as contributing to the maintenance of the outdoor area. The role of the adult in modelling is fundamental to the Steiner method of education. One of the ideals of Steiner education is that the adult supports childrens’ positive social behaviours and their development of self-identity and self-esteem by involving children with the preservation and upkeep of the outdoor area (Oldfield, 2001). Some children become more confident outdoors, and express a willingness to play and interact with other children. Adults relate differently to children in the outdoor environment; Rivkin (1998) denotes that while inside children are expected to sit still and be quiet, whilst outside they have the freedom to engage in physical activity and express themselves. This means that they display overt behaviours without the risk of being disciplined (Bilton, 2002;Ouvry, 2003). Henniger (1985) studied pre-school childrens’ behavior in indoor and outdoor settings and found that the indoor environment may inhibit some children socially because of the limitation of space, floor covering and the limited noise levels.

Staff perception/training

Another notable variable which affects the use and implementation of the outdoor area is the personal educational philosophy of the Early years teacher, in particular their regard for the outdoor provision as a medium for learning and development. Moyles (2007) discusses why outdoor play may be limited in some early years settings, stating that it is due to fear of litigation and staff’s lack of expertise and experience of the outdoor environment (Maudsley, 2005). Moreover, a practitioner’s perception of the outdoors is very relevant to the experience which they will subsequently provide for children. Ouvry (2000) elaborates on this, suggesting that the desire and drive to make the changes necessary for children to go outside need to be present in order for children to fully experience the outdoors and many educators are unfortunately not enthusiastic about the merits of the outdoors. Furthermore, Waters (2006) describes some adults as bio-phobic, as they have an unnatural hate for the outdoors and will not entre it with pleasure. Moreover, this links to the adverse climatic conditions as it is the most unpredictable component of working in the outdoors, although children are used to the outside as a general learning environment and are less aware of the nuances than weather (Bilton, 1998). Therefore, it is only adults who are reticent in going outdoors in un-favourable weather. The forecasting of the weather can also be used as a highly effective learning tool for children to develop their geographical acumen (Bilton, 1998). Another extraneous variable, which has been proven to affect the experience children receive in the outdoor area is parents’ perception of using the outdoor environment. Parents need to see the tangible benefits and purpose of outdoor play, McMillan (1930) felt that if parents could watch their children engaging in outdoor play and if practitioners could interpret the play, explaining what their child is doing, then parents way be more agreeable towards outdoor provision (Bilton, 1998).

Throughout education, there is a varied and fragmented diaspora of play provision available within settings and the resources which are available for children to use. Dempsey and Frost (as cited in Pugh, 2001) highlight that materials and equipment which are provided for children strongly influence the type and quality of play they engage in, impacting further on children’s learning and development. This is in concordance with Whitbread (1996) who maintains the viewpoint that there needs to be a well-equipped environment to facilitate play. The current EYFS framework (DfES, 2012) argues that the outdoor environment is best when it is …’enhanced by an environment that is richly resourced with exciting play materials and open-ended flexible resources that can be adapted and used in different ways, according to the needs and interests of the individual children.’ (DfES, 2012, p3). Bruce and Meggitt (2002) extrapolate this having the duality of also meaning providing a well-resourced ‘outdoor’ area stating;’…the outdoor area needs to be available for most of the time…the outdoor area should complement the indoor, so that the children can spend all morning outside and have the same choices on offer.’ (Bruce and Meggitt, 2002, p.44).

Bilton (2001) points out that. even when provision of outdoor play is sufficiently resourced, the most engrossing indoor session will be abandoned by children mid session to seek stimuli outside; Bilton (2001) says this quantifies just how much children love the outdoors. Stephenson (2002) clearly agrees with this and further provides the justification for this is that practitioners are less restricted by routines in the outdoor environment, with fewer distractions; therefore to the child , the adult may appear more approachable.The way that the outdoor environment is equipped is essential, as it is central to the way in which play is allowed to propagate and flourish (Abbott and Nutbrown, 2001). Esbenson (1987) advises that the outdoor environment should be zoned to facilitate children’s diverse interests, some zones would contain climbing apparatus, others social interaction and sections for sensory or socio-dramatic play. Moyles (2007) suggests that there is a prevalent within the UK that we should ‘mirror the provision indoors to that outdoors’ which has led to books, puzzles, pencils and construction used abundant in the outdoors. This strongly supports Dowling (2010) who expresses the viewpoint that what is offered indoors should complement what is happening in the outdoors. However, it could be argued that these are outdoor materials and that outdoors should be disjoint from the indoor environment. Therefore, Moyles (2007) says that it is not enough just to go outside because many of the outdoor environments set up for children are synthetic and artificial. Warden (2007) discusses that some adults’ perception of resources is that materials which are designed by adults have a greater value, however, adults who are knowledgeable about the ways in which young children learn can see beyond this narrow viewpoint and see that many of these resources exude limited exploration and learning. This is consolidated by Bilton (2010) who states that it is not sufficient to move indoor resources outdoors as this does not constitute quality outdoor play. The outdoors offers children numerous. opportunities which are not possible inside Edgington (2004) suggests that in the outdoors children should be encouraged to work on a more active and louder scale. Therefore, resources need to be carefully accumulated in the outdoor environment and how effective they are at catering for children’s learning and development.

Health and Safety (Risky play)

Safety has become an overriding factor in activities, to the point that it is a hindrance. Moyles (2007) suggests that this culture is paradoxically unsafe as children are not involved in safety issues and do not learn how to keep themselves safe and be aware of imminent dangers. Bruce (2012) analyses the importance of risk taking and adventurous play in the outdoors and proffers the view that play outdoors motivates children to extend their own learning boundaries, to be adventurous, to explore a little further and to engage with risk in a supportive environment. Claxton (1999) firmly supports this, claiming that risk-taking is part of the toolkit for effective learners. In addition, Dowling (2010) states that practitioners should consider a risk benefit assessment approach where providers carefully consider some of the advantages of the risks for the children. There is shift in the way that risk is approached, The Better Regulation Commission’s report ‘  Risk, Responsibility and Regulation: Whose risk is it anyway? ’ argue that risk can be beneficial and that managing risk is a shared responsibility.

Within the EYFS (DfES, 2007), statements concerning risky and outdoor play can also be seen ‘ Through play children can…take risks and make mistakes’ (DfES, 2007,p8). Taking risks is part of the learning process and children being able to be outdoors allows them to explore things that they might not be able to in the classroom.

Time/Access

There is also a large variation in the time which is allocated to outdoor play which is in accordance with the argument articulated by Bruce (1987) that “frequent lack of attention to the external environment must come from some bizarre assumption that knowledge acquired indoor is superior to that gained outside’ (Bruce, 1987, p55).

Within indoor activities children will more inclined to concentrate and persevere if they have the time to pursue interests, the outdoors is not conductive to this as McAuley and Jackson (1992) suggest that interrupting ‘children’s’ absorbed activity’ can subvert learning almost as much as allowing overt, maladaptive behavior. Moyles (2007) discusses the culture of the current schooling system in that children only get a limited period of time outside and some schools have extensive woodland but have a very restricted opportunity to experience these. A guidance document from the National Strategies suggests that ‘settings that have prolonged periods of free access to a challenging outdoor environment report that generally children behave more co-operatively, particularly boys.’ (DfES, 2008). Large construction areas and resources which promote imaginative play including making dens in trees and bushes all foster collaborative play. Staff ratios also affects the amount of time given to outside provision as it influences the degree of involvement of adults with the outside activities. Settings who restrict time in outdoor provision to set times in the day need to recognise that if children had free access to the outdoor environment there will be no strain on resources which can create difficulties such as children sharing provision and adults allocating their time fairly (Dowling, 2010). Children need time to develop their ideas and should not be disrupted by adults, the EYFS (2008) argues that children need time to play and work, that practitioners need to be flexible in their planning, so that children can follow an interest and if necessary, enable children to return to an activity at a later time. In terms of outdoor play, this means children need to be able to use both areas freely through making sure they make effective use of both spaces and most importantly have uninterrupted time to pursue interests (Bilton, 2010).

Stevens (2003) found that practitioners found it difficult to understand what ‘equal access’ meant and concluded that ‘simultaneously’ was a better word meaning that at any time there was free play inside, the outside should be available alongside this. However, within schools there is also pressure for children to perform and be hit their targets so some practitioners may argue that the pressures of these SATS and other attainment targets affects their ability to plan for the indoor and outdoors simultaneously as many view indoor activities being more conductive to their learning.

A large outdoor area which allows for a variety of different perspectives from different heights provides opportunities for children to enhance and consolidate their spatial awareness and mental mapping skills through physical play (Moyles, 2005). Moyles (2005) suggests that space allows children to be away from adults if they want to be and offers more space for children to interact with their peers. Pollard (2008) argues we need to consider the organisation of space as this can impact on the kind of teaching, the attitudes of the learners and the quality of learning. Good use needs to be made of the outdoor area so children can work on a larger, more active scale than is possible indoors (DfCSF, 2008).

Dowling (2010) states that the aim of the outdoor space should complement what is available for children inside in order to allow for the flow and elaboration of ideas and to make it as accessible as possible. This sentiment is also discussed by Ouvry (2000) who states that this allows the outdoor experience to be on a much grander scale.

The themes which have been found in the literature and research studies have also been critically analysed such as time and access to the outdoor provision, resources and adult role and staff’s perception and training in the outdoor environment.

Bibliography

Abbott, L. and Nutbrown, C. (2001)  Experiencing Reggio Emilia: Implications for Preschool Provision.  Buckingham: Open University Press.

Barrett, J. and Greenway, R. (1995)  WHY ADVENTURE? The Role and Value of Outdoor Adventure in Young People’s Personal and Social Development: A Review of Research.  London: Foundation for Outdoor Research.

Bruce, T. (1987)  Early Childhood Education . London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Bruce, T. (1991)  Time to Play in Early Childhood Education . London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Bilton, H. (1998)

Bilton, H. (2002)  Outdoor play in the early years.  London: David Fulton.Forbes (2004)

Bilton, H. (2010)  Outdoor Play in the Early Years Management and Innovation . London: David Fulton.

Central Advisory Council for Education (CACE) (1967)  Children and their primary schools (Plowden Report).  London: HMSO.

Constable, K. (2012)  The Outdoor Classroom Ages 3-7, Using ideas from Forest Schools to enrich learning . London: David Fulton

Claxton, G. (1999)  Wise Up: Challenge of Life-Long Learning . London: Bloomsbury

DfCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (2008) T he Early Years Foundation Stage . Nottingham: DfCSF.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2008) T he National Strategies Early Years. Social and Emotional Aspects of Development. (SEAD) Guidance for Practitioners in the Early Years Foundation Stage . London. DCSF.

DfES (2006)  Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto . Nottingham: Crown Publications.

Doyle, P. (2006) ‘Nature makes the best teacher and classroom’,  Early Years Education , 8 (3): pp. 3-10.

Dowling, M. (2010)  Young Children’s Personal, Social and Emotional Development.  3rd edn. London: Sage

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2006)  Learning outside the classroom: manifesto . [Online]. Available at:  http://www.outdoor‐learning.org/external (Accessed: 29 December 2013).

Edgington, M. ( 2004)  The Foundation Stage Teacher in Action Teaching 3, 4 and 5 year olds . London: Paul Chapman.

Featherstone, S. and Bayley, R. (2002)  Foundations for Independence. Developing independent learning in the Foundation Stage . Lutterworth: Featherstone Education Ltd.

Featherstone, S. (2007)  The Little Book of Outdoor Play . London: Featherstone Education Ltd.

Fjortoft, I. ( 2004) ‘Landscape as playscape. The effects of the natural environments on children’s play and motor development’,  Children Youth and Environments , 14(2).

Froebel, F.W. (1887)  The Education of Man . New York: Appleton.

Henniger, M.L. (1985) ‘Pre-School Children’s Play Behaviours in an Indoor and Outdoor Environment’ In Frost, J.L. and Sunderlin, S. (eds.)  When Children Play. Proceedings of theI nternational Conference on Play and Play Environments . Wheaton, M D: Association for Childhood Education International. pp. 145-149.

Isaacs, S. (1932)  The Nursery Years . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Knight, S. ( 2009)  Forest Schools and Outdoor Learning in the Early Years . London: Sage.

Maynard, T. and Waters, J. ( 2007)  Learning in the Outdoor Environment: a missed opportunity?  27 (3), pp. 255-365.

Maudsley, M. (2005)  Playing on the Wildside . Gloucester: Playwork Partners.

McAuley, H. and Jackson, P. (1992)  Educating Young Children: A structural Approach . London: David Fulton.

Moyles, J. (2005)  The Excellence of Play . 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Moyles, J. ( 2007)  Early Years Foundations. Meeting the Challenge . Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ouvry, M. (2000) ‘All about outdoor learning’,  Nursery World , pp. 15-22.

Ouvry, M. (2003)  Exercising muscles and minds: outdoor play and the early years curriculum.  London: National Early Years Network.

Rivkin, M. (1998) ‘Happy play in grassy places: the importance of the outdoor environment in Dewey’s educational ideal’,  Early Childhood Education Journal , 25(3): pp. 199–202.

Warden, C. (2007)  Nature through Nurture . Auchterarder: Mindstretchers.

Waite, S., Davies, B. and Brown, K. (2006)  Five stories of outdoor learning from settings for 2–11 year olds in Devon.  Plymouth: University of Plymouth.

Waller, T. (2007) ‘The Trampoline Tree and the Swamp Monster with Eighteen Heads’,  Education 3-13 , 35 (4), pp. 393-497.

Wood, E. and Attfield, J. (2005)  Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum . London: Sage.

Woonton, P. (2006) ‘Taking risks is vital to providing truly inclusive practice’,  Early Years Education , 8(3).

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on Criminal Justice White Collar Crime
• Tesco Supermarket: SWOT, PESTEL, Porter’s Five Forces and Value Chai...
• Essay on Military Service Recruit Diatribe
• Literature Review: ‘How Do Children Learn Geometry?’
• The Bible Was Central to All Intellectual As Well as Moral Life in the...
• RESEARCH PROPOSAL – “Enhancing Quality in Patient Care”

Explore the content categories

• Anxiety and depression
• Assisted reproductive technology
• Breastfeeding
• Child care – Early childhood education and care
• Child nutrition
• Child obesity
• Crying behaviour
• Divorce and separation
• Epigenetics
• Executive functions
• Father – Paternity
• Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD)
• Gender: early socialization
• Head Start policy
• Home visiting
• Hyperactivity and inattention (ADHD)
• Immigration
• Immunization
• Importance of early childhood development
• Injury prevention
• Integrated early childhood development services
• Language development and literacy
• Learning disabilities
• Low income and pregnancy
• Maltreatment (child)
• Maternal depression
• Mental health
• Nutrition – Pregnancy
• Outdoor play
• Parental leave
• Parenting skills
• Peer relations
• Physical activity
• Play-based learning
• Prematurity
• Preschool programs
• Prosocial behaviour
• School readiness
• School success
• Second language
• Sleeping behaviour
• Social cognition
• Social violence
• Stress and pregnancy (prenatal and perinatal)
• Technology in early childhood education
• Temperament
• Tobacco and pregnancy
• Welfare reform

Young Children’s Outdoor Play-Based Learning

Jane Waters, PhD, Angie Rekers, PhD Student University of Wales Trinity Saint David, United Kingdom May 2019

Introduction

In this chapter, we consider current thinking about young children’s learning when they engage in outdoor play. The role of the teacher, parent and/or caregiver (hereafter ‘adult’) and the importance of cultural context in relation to the learning that takes place outside is explored. Recent research, noting the reduced opportunities for unsupervised outdoor play, centres upon:

• The child’s developmental outcomes, e.g., physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, creativity and imagination; as well as connections with the non-human natural world.  
• The adult’s role in children’s play, learning, access to and engagement with the outdoors.  
• The setting, i.e., urban spaces, natural/non-built spaces, pedagogical spaces.

Young children’s learning is the focus of attention globally and is seen as the route by which countries can invest in their futures 1 as part of Sustainable Development Goals. 2 Within this global conversation, the position of play in young children’s learning, the forms of play that support learning and ‘effective’ provision for young children’s playful activity as a part of their care/education experiences are debated and contested. 3-7 Discussions about the place of the outdoors as a site for young children’s play and learning are now commonplace in international literature. 8-13

The content of research and literature relating to children’s learning outside is wide ranging, and includes, for example: 

• the impact of outdoor play provision on children’s motor skills development, health and fitness; 14
• risk negotiation skills; 15,16,17
• early scientific enquiry through hands-on engagement with the natural world; 18   
• participation and sense of self through playful experiences in the outdoors; 19  
• the attunement of young children with the physical world around them in order that they are ‘at home in the world‘ 20,21 and 
• post-humanist and post-colonist ‘common world’ understandings which take account of children's relations with all living and non-living others in their worlds. 22  

An essential feature in the field of outdoor play provision is the orientation of the adult, since this will shape the learning experiences of the child. Key issues are:

• Adult understandings of and orientations toward play, children’s competencies and the outdoor space;
• Tensions between ‘free play’ and play as a directed learning activity, between structured curriculum goals and play-based approaches; 
• Availability and quality of outdoor play spaces;
• Decreased opportunities for outdoor play, the causes of which are socially, culturally and historically situated.

The issues above are addressed across a range of research paradigms, often through small scale qualitative studies and, increasingly, through interdisciplinary research which can be influenced by turns in philosophical thinking. This includes, for example, children’s geographies; 23,24 early childhood education considering children’s inter/intra-activity with materials; 25,26 ecological and environmental psychology; 27 and socio-cultural perspectives within the field of education. 28

Key Research Questions

Research questions in the area of outdoor play and learning are similarly wide-ranging. Some key questions include: 

• How does outdoor learning take place? What is the role of the adult and peers? 
• How do we understand children’s engagement with their surroundings, adopting a ‘common worlds’ approach? 29
• What is the contribution of play in nature to children’s development? 
• How do children participate in different spaces? How is their participation related to the adult conceptualizations and intended purposes of the space? 30,31

Recent Research Results 

The results of the small-scale qualitative studies typical of the field are localized to specific contexts. The evidence base includes few larger scale quantitative studies, and those available tend to relate to physical health and activity. 32-35 However, children’s experiences in the outdoors are shaped by their specific social-cultural context, the perceptions and attitudes of adults towards their competencies and the specific affordances of the outdoor space. Therefore, the existing evidence base can provide some relatable insights for planning for children’s outdoor play-based learning. 

The orientation of adults who provide access to, and shape interaction with, the outdoor space is emphasized throughout the literature. 36 If adults are risk averse, or underestimate children’s competencies, then children can be deterred from overcoming fear of new challenges; 37 conversely, adults can support children’s engagement in risk-taking to gain mastery over challenges and adjust understandings of their own competencies. 38-40

Children’s access to outdoor spaces may be increasingly limited as a result of risk aversion, the perception that children lack competency to engage with the world alone, and are in danger when outside. 13,24,41-43 The corollary to such cultural understandings is that those providing care and education for young children may be risk averse and fear litigation. 44 Similarly, those designing play equipment for young children can create unappetizing play spaces lacking challenge. 45 Such adult orientation can mean that children’s play, if understood as being freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated, 46,47 may be severely curtailed, especially outdoors. 48 Cultural aversions to inclement weather can also limit children’s access to outdoor play, 49 rather than expecting children to experience weather conditions as part of their development as capable citizens. 50

The conflict between child-directed activity and adult-driven agendas and interpretations are evident. 46,51,52 Children’s playful activity may contrast with adults’ expectations as children interact 53 with materials and concepts. Importantly, playful activity does not necessarily only happen within the allotted time, 54 or within the allocated spaces. 55

Adults adopting a ‘playful pedagogy approach’ 56-58 in which interactions are directed responsively toward the interests and activity of the child appears to enhance opportunities for learning, 59-61 including increased responsive communication between adults and children, opportunities for joint attention and depth of engagement. 36,62  

Research Gaps 

Further empirical work would benefit our understanding of the impact of professional learning, and differing employment routes into the early years education-care sector, on the provision for, and outcomes of, children’s playful engagement in the outdoors.  

While the value of large-scale quantitative studies in the area of early childhood is contested; 63 there is a gap in the empirical evidence base which lacks systematic large-scale studies comparing children’s learning for those engaging in regular outdoor play compared to no such engagement.  

There are also research gaps pertaining to the impact of, and mechanisms by which, children with multiple needs engage and learn through play in the outdoors. 

Conclusions  

The literature related to children’s outdoor play and learning suggest that children benefit from opportunities to regularly engage in playful activity in a variety of outdoor spaces. It also demonstrates the relationships between adults’ attitudes and actions and the learning outcomes of children resulting from playful engagement in the outdoors. Children’s learning outside is supported by adults who are responsive to the child’s interests and can support the development of them, without taking control of the activity. 

This evidence base is not conclusive; however, play in varied outdoor spaces that is exploratory, includes opportunities to be social, and is supported by responsive adults appears to support children’s enquiry skills, sense of self-efficacy, well-being, connections in the world, and their all-round physical competency. These benefits seem to be enhanced when adults are oriented towards and responsive to children’s enquiries and interests, supportive of children’s managed risk-taking and mastery of physical challenges, and feel confident enough to not restrict children’s activity unless their safety is genuinely threatened.  

Implications for Parents, Services and Policy 

The implications of the above are wide ranging. Parents may want to consider providing experiences outdoors in which children can explore the world around them, challenge themselves physically and play with others, without overt and limiting surveillance that restricts opportunities to successfully negotiate risk and gain physical competence. Parents may wish to consider children’s opportunities for playful engagement in varied natural and built outdoor spaces balancing concerns about risk with opportunities for learning and exploring.  Those providing early childhood services should equally consider these issues.  Policy providers should consider whether regulatory requirements or guidelines for early years’ service providers should include an explicit expectation for children’s outdoor play. Those who regulate, inspect or assess such provision should be mindful of what appears to benefit children when they engage in outdoor play and learning, as set out above, supported by adults attuned to, and responsive to, children’s interests.  Those providing professional learning for the education-care workforce should consider their provision in the light of the above. 64  

• OECD. Starting Strong: Key OECD indicators on early childhood education and care. 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en&nbsp ;
• United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. October 2015.
• Fleer M. Early learning and development. Cultural-historical concepts in play . New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. 
• Isenberg JP, Quisenberry N. A position paper of the association for childhood education international play: essential for all children. Childhood Education . 2012;79(1):33-39. doi:10.1080/00094056.2002.10522763.  
• Leggett N, Newman L. Play: Challenging educators’ beliefs about play in the indoor and outdoor environment. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood . 2017;42(1):24-32. doi:10.23965/AJEC.42.1.03. 
• Moss P. Why can’t we get beyond quality? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood . 2016;17(1):8-15. doi: 10.1177/1463949115627895.  
• Wood E. Free choice and free play in early childhood education: troubling the discourse. International Journal of Early Years Education . 2014;22(1):4-18. doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.830562. 
• Coates JK, Pimlott-Wilson H. Learning while playing: children’s forest school experiences in the UK. British Educational Research Journal . 2018;45(1):21-40. doi:10.1002/berj.3491
• Grindheim LT, Ødegaard EE. What is the state of play? International Journal of Play . 2013;2(1):4-6.  doi:10.1080/21594937.2013.769819.
• Maynard T. Forest Schools in Great Britain: an initial exploration. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood.  2007;8(4):320-331. doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2007.8.4.320.   
• Pacini-Ketchabaw V, Taylor A, eds. Unsettling the colonial places and spaces of early childhood education in settler colonial societies. New York, NY: Routledge; 2015.
• Somerville M, Powell SJ. Thinking posthuman with mud and children of the Anthropocene. Educational Philosophy and Theory . 2018:1-12. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.1516138
• Waller T, Sandseter EBH, Wyver S, Ärlemalm‐Hagsér E. Maynard T. The dynamics of early childhood spaces: opportunities for outdoor play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Outdoor play and learning special issue . 2010;18(4):437-443. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2010.525917
• Bjørgen K. Physical activity in light of affordances in outdoor environments: qualitative observation studies of 3-5 year olds in kindergarten. Springer Plus . 2016;(5):950-961. 
• Sandseter EBH. Affordances for risky play in preschool: the importance of features in the play environment. Early Childhood Education Journal . 2009;36(5):439-446. 
• Sandseter EBH. Restrictive safety or unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC practitioners' perceptions and practices concerning children's risky play. Child Care in Practice . 2012;18(1):83-101. doi:10.1080/13575279.2011.621889.
• Sandseter EBH, Kleppe R. Outdoor Risky Play. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Brussoni M, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/outdoor-play/according-experts/outdoor-risky-play . Published May 2019. Accessed May 2, 2019. 
• Waters J, MacDonald N. Using ‘quality’ measures of children’s learning experiences to target professional learning in early years pre-school staff: the experience of one local authority in Wales. European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA) annual conference: Budapest, August 2018. 
• Rekers A. Affordances for children’s participation within the reception year classroom and at forest school, PhD thesis. University of Wales Trinity Saint David; Feb 2019.
• Chawla L. Childhood place attachments. In: Altman I, Low SM, eds. Place Attachment. Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in Theory and Research) . Vol.12. Boston, MA: Springer; 1992:63-68. 
• Waite S. Knowing your place in the world: how place and culture support and obstruct educational aims. Cambridge Journal of Education . 2013;43(4):413-433. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.792787
• Pacini-Ketchabaw V, Clark V. Following watery relations in early childhood pedagogies. Journal of Early Childhood Research . 2016;14(1):98-111. doi:10.1177/1476718X14529281 
• Holloway SL, Pimlott-Wilson H. Enriching children, institutionalizing childhood? Geographies of play, extracurricular activities, and parenting in England. Annals of the Association of American Geographers . 2014;104(3):613-627. doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.846167.
• Horton J, Kraftl P. Three playgrounds: Researching the multiple geographies of children’s outdoor play. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space . 2018;50(1):214–235. doi: 10.1177/0308518X17735324.
• Lenz Taguchi H. Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy . London and New York: Routledge; 2010.   
• Lester S, Russell W. Turning the world upside down: playing as the deliberate creation of uncertainty. Children . 2014;1:241-260. doi:10.3390/children1020241 
• Kytta M. The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordance as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology . 2004;24:179-198.
• Waller T, Sandseter EBH, Wyver S, Ärlemalm‐Hagsér E. Maynard T. The dynamics of early childhood spaces: opportunities for outdoor play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Outdoor play and learning special issue . 2010;18(4):437-443. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2010.525917
• Taylor A. Reconfiguring the Natures of Childhood. London & New York: Routledge; 2013. 
• Holloway SL, Valentine G, eds. Children’s Geographies: playing, living and learning. London and New York: Routledge; 2000.
• Rekers A. Exploring children’s participation and motive orientation in the reception year classroom and at forest school, PhD thesis. University of Wales Trinity Saint David; Feb 2019.
• Bundy AC, Wyver S, Beetham KS, et al.  The Sydney playground project- levelling the playing field: a cluster trial of a primary school-based intervention aiming to promote manageable risk-taking in children with disability. BMC Public Health . 2015;15:1125. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2452-4  
• Bundy A, Engelen L, Wyver S, et al.  Sydney playground project: a cluster‐randomized trial to increase physical activity, play, and social skills. Journal of School Health . 2017; 87(10):751-759. doi:10.1111/josh.12550
• Barber SE, Jackson C, Akhtar S, Bingham DD, et al. “Pre-schoolers in the playground”: an outdoor physical activity intervention for children aged 18 months to 4 years old: Study protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials . 2013;14:326. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-326. 
• Gray C, Gibbons R, Larouche R, et al. What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . 2015;12(6): 6455-6474. doi:10.3390/ijerph120606455
• Waters J, Bateman A. Revealing the interactional features of learning and teaching moments in outdoor activity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2015;23(2):264-276. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2013.798099 
• Little H, Wyver S, Gibson F. The influence of play context and adult attitudes on young children's physical risk‐taking during outdoor play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal . 2011;19(1):113-131. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.548959. 
• Sandseter EBH. Restrictive safety or unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC practitioners' perceptions and practices concerning children's risky play. Child Care in Practice . 2012;18(1):83-101 doi:10.1080/13575279.2011.621889. 
• Little H, Wyver S. Individual differences in children's risk perception and appraisals in outdoor play environments. International Journal of Early Years Education . 2010;18(4):297-313. doi:10.1080/09669760.2010.531600. 
• Bateman A., Waters J. Risk-taking in the New Zealand bush: Issues of resilience and wellbeing. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education; Special issue . 2018;12(2):7-29. doi:10.17206/apjrece.2018.12.2.7
• Little H. Children’s risk‐taking behaviour: implications for early childhood policy and practice. International Journal of Early Years Education . 2006;14(2):141-154. doi:10.1080/09669760600661427. 
• Gill T. No fear: growing up in a risk adverse society. London: Caloustie Gulbenkian Foundation; 2007. 
• Wyver S, Tranter P, Naughton G, Little H, Sandseter EBH, Bundy A. Ten ways to restrict children’s freedom to play: the problem of surplus safety. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2010;11(3):263-277. doi:10.2304\\ciec.2010.11.3.263.
• Gill T. Nothing ventured: balancing risks and benefits in the outdoors. Nottingham, UK: English Outdoor Council; 2010.
• Little H, Eager D. Outdoor play and learning risk, challenge and safety: implications for play quality and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2010;18(4): 497-513. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2010.525949
• Else P. Making sense of play: supporting children in their play. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2013. 
• Playwork Principles Scrutiny Group (PPSG) Playwork Principles, Cardiff: Play Wales; 2015. http://www.playwales.org.uk/login/uploaded/documents/INFORMATION%20SHEETS/The%20Playwork%20Principles%20-%20an%20overview.pdf . Accessed April 30, 2019. 
• Waite S. Teaching and learning outside the classroom: personal values, alternative pedagogies and standards. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education. 2011;39(1):65-82. doi:10.1080\\03004270903206141
• Maynard T, Waters J. Learning in the outdoor environment: a missed opportunity? Early Years: An International Research Journal. 2007;27(3):255-265. doi:10.1080/09575140701594400. 
• Einarsdottir J, Wagner JA. Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden . Greenwich: Information Age Publishing; 2006.
• King P, Howard J. Free choice or adaptable choice: Self-determination theory and play. American Journal of Play . 2016;9(1):56-70. 
• Rekers A. The nature of children’s participation within the reception year classroom and at forest school, PhD thesis. February 2019. University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
• Rekers A. Exploring children’s participation and motive orientation in the reception year classroom and at forest school, PhD thesis. February 2019. University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
• Ingold T. Bindings against boundaries: entanglements of life in an open world. Environment and Planning . 2008:1-16. doi:10.1068/a40156.
• Goouch K. Understanding playful pedagogies, play narratives and play spaces. Early Years . 2008;28(1):93-102. doi:10.1080/09575140701815136.
• Goouch K. Forging and fostering relationships in play. Whose zone is it anyway? In: Papatheodorou T, Moyles J, eds. Learning together in the early years. Exploring relational pedagogy. London: Routledge; 2009:139-151.
• Wood E. Developing a pedagogy of play. In: Anning A, Cullen J, Fleer M, eds. Early childhood education: society and culture . London: SAGE; 2008:27-38. 
• Broadhead P. Developing an understanding of young children’s learning through play: the place of observation, interaction and reflection. British Educational Research Journal. 2006;32(2):191-207. doi:10.1080/01411920600568976 
• Chen F, Fleer M. A cultural-historical reading of how play is used in families as a tool for supporting children’s emotional development in everyday life. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2016;24(2):305-319. doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2016.1143268
• Fleer M. Early learning and development: cultural-historical concepts in play . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Bateman A., Waters J. Asymmetries of knowledge between children and teachers on a New Zealand bush walk. Australian Journal of Communication Special Issue on Asymmetries of Knowledge . 2013;40(2):19-32.
• Moss P, Urban M. The organization for economic cooperation and development’s international early learning study: what’s going on. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood . 2018;00(0):1-6. doi:10.1177/1463949118803269
• Dietze B, Kashin D. Building Capacity to Support Outdoor Play in Early Childhood Education. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Brussoni M, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/outdoor-play/according-experts/building-capacity-support-outdoor-play-early-childhood-education . Published May 2019. Accessed May 2, 2019.

How to cite this article:

Waters J, Rekers A. Young Children’s Outdoor Play-Based Learning. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Brussoni M, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online].  https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/outdoor-play/according-experts/young-childrens-outdoor-play-based-learning . Published: May 2019. Accessed April 17, 2024.