The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning 9781473926608

Citation preview

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

SAGE Publications Ltd 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP SAGE Publications Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road New Delhi 110 044 SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd 3 Church Street #10-04 Samsung Hub Singapore 049483

Editor: Jude Bowen Editorial Assistant: Catriona McMullen Production Editor: Shikha Jain Copyeditor: Elaine Leek Proofreader: Sunrise Setting Ltd. Indexer: Cathryn Pritchard Marketing Manager: Dilhara Attygalle Cover Design: Wendy Scott Typeset by: Cenveo Publisher Services Printed in the UK

Introduction & editorial arrangement © Tim Waller, Eva ÄrlemalmHagsér, Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, Libby Lee-Hammond, Kristi Lekies and Shirley Wyver 2017 Chapter 1 © Olivia N. Saracho 2017 Chapter 2 © Jane Waters 2017 Chapter 3 © Doris Bergen 2017 Chapter 4 © Robyn M. Holmes and Kristen E. Kohm 2017 Chapter 5 © Shirley Wyver 2017 Chapter 6 © Sara Knight 2017 Chapter 7 © Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, Helen Little, David Ball, David Eager and Mariana Brussoni 2017 Chapter 8 © Tim Gill 2017 Chapter 9 © Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle and Mariana Brussoni 2017 Chapter 10 © Kwi-Ok Nah 2017 Chapter 11 © Pelusa Orellana and Maria Francisca Valenzuela 2017 Chapter 12 © Susan G. Solomon 2017 Chapter 13 © Eva ÄrlemalmHagsér and Anette Sandberg 2017 Chapter 14 © Sarah MacQuarrie and Clare Nugent 2017 Chapter 15 © Olav B. Lysklett 2017 Chapter 16 © Eva Änggård 2017 Chapter 17 © Antje Luchs 2017 Chapter 18 © Claire Warden 2017 Chapter 19 © Sue Elliott 2017 Chapter 20 © Libby LeeHammond 2017 Chapter 21 © Ylva Jannok Nutti 2017 Chapter 22 © Feyza Tantekin Erden and Zis¸an Güner Alpaslan† 2017

Chapter 23 © Theresa Casey 2017 Chapter 24 © Georgianna Duarte and Greta Freeman 2017 Chapter 25 © Mary Caroline Rowan 2017 Chapter 26 © Bernhard Koch and Kari Emilsen 2017 Chapter 27 © Angeliki Bitou and Tim Waller 2017 Chapter 28 © Philip Waters 2017 Chapter 29 © Natalie Canning 2017 Chapter 30 © Shirley Wyver, Lina Engelen, Geraldine Naughton and Anita Bundy 2017 Chapter 31 © Libby Lee-Hammond and Yeshe Colliver 2017 Chapter 32 © Josefina Prieto 2017 Chapter 33 © Amanda Bateman, Margie Hohepa and Tim Bennett 2017 Chapter 34 © Kristi Lekies, Thomas Beery and Jed Brensinger 2017 Chapter 35 © Valerie Huggins 2017 Chapter 36 © Judy Van Heerden and Marié Botha 2017 Chapter 37 © Kristín Norðdahl, Jóhanna Einarsdóttir and Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir 2017 Chapter 38 © Kari-Anne Jørgensen 2017 Chapter 39 © Merete Lund Fasting 2017 Chapter 40 © Sachiko Kitano 2017

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using FSC papers and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the PREPS grading system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016960734 British Library Cataloguing in Publication data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-4739-2660-8

Contents List of Figuresxi List of Tablesxiii Notes on the Editors and Contributorsxv Acknowledgementsxxviii Introduction 1 Tim Waller, Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér, Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, Libby Lee-Hammond, Kristi Lekies and Shirley Wyver PART I THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES (Editor – Shirley Wyver) 23 1

Theoretical Framework of Developmental Theories of Play Olivia N. Saracho

25

2

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play Jane Waters

40

3

Technology and Outdoor Play: Concerns and Opportunities Doris Bergen

55

4

Outdoor Play in Recess Time Robyn M. Holmes and Kristen E. Kohm

69

5

Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development Shirley Wyver

85

6

Forest School for the Early Years in England Sara Knight

97

PART II CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON POLICY AND REGULATION (Editor – Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter) 111 7

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter, Helen Little, David Ball, David Eager and Mariana Brussoni

113

8

The Evolution of Policy on Risk Management in Outdoor Play Tim Gill

127

vi

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

9

Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children Mattered Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle and Mariana Brussoni

10

The Rise of Outdoor Play and Education Issues in Preschools in South Korea Kwi-Ok Nah

166

Outdoor Play in Latin American Early Childhood and Elementary Schools: A Review of the Literature Pelusa Orellana and Maria Francisca Valenzuela

180

11

12

How to Revitalize American Playgrounds Susan G. Solomon

143

195

PART III CHILDREN’S ENGAGEMENT WITH NATURE, SUSTAINABILITY AND CHILDREN’S GEOGRAPHIES (Editor – Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér) 211 13

14

15

Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: The Relationship between Young Children’s Participation and Agency – Children and Nature Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér and Anette Sandberg

213

Considering Children’s Opportunities for Exploration of their Local Environment and Engagement with Nature Sarah MacQuarrie and Clare Nugent

229

Nature Preschools in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Norway: Characteristics and Differences Olav B. Lysklett

242

16

Places for Symbolic Play in Nature Environments Eva Änggård

251

17

Assessing Free Play Behaviour in Urban Play Spaces Antje Luchs

264

18

Nature Pedagogy – An Exploration of the Storied Narratives that Illustrate its Application Across Spaces Inside, Outside and Beyond Claire Warden

279

An Australian Perspective: Seeking Sustainability in Early Childhood Outdoor Play Spaces Sue Elliott

295

19

Contents

vii

PART IV DIVERSE CONTEXTS AND INCLUSION IN CHILDREN’S OUTDOOR PLAY ENVIRONMENTS (Editor – Libby Lee-Hammond) 317 20

Belonging in Nature: Spirituality, Indigenous Cultures and Biophilia Libby Lee-Hammond

21

Along Paths of Movement: Sámi Children and Early Childhood Student Teachers as Wayfarers Ylva Jannok Nutti

319

333

22

Gender Issues in Outdoor Play Feyza Tantekin Erden and Zişan Güner Alpaslan†

348

23

Outdoor Play and Learning in the Landscape of Children’s Rights Theresa Casey

362

24

Multilingual Development and Outdoor Play Georgianna Duarte and Greta Freeman

378

25

Relating with Land/Engaging with Elders: Accessing Indigenous Knowledges in Early Childhood Education through Outdoor Encounters Mary Caroline Rowan

26

Men and Women in Outdoor Play – The Gender Perspective Bernhard Koch and Kari Emilsen

395

413

PART V METHODOLOGIES FOR RESEARCHING OUTDOOR PLAY AND LEARNING (Editor – Tim Waller) 429 27

Participatory Research with Very Young Children Angeliki Bitou and Tim Waller

431

28

Developing the Pedagogic Method Narrative Journey Philip Waters

446

29

Take Two: Using Video as an Analysis Tool for Outdoor Play Natalie Canning

464

30

The Importance of Randomized Controlled Trials as an Evidence Base Shirley Wyver, Lina Engelen, Geraldine Naughton and Anita Bundy

480

31

Indigenous Methodologies in Education Research: Case Study of Children’s Play in Solomon Islands Libby Lee-Hammond and Yeshe Colliver

495

viii

32

33

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

‘Naturalizar Educativamente’: The Chilean Quest for Introducing Outdoor Learning and Play in Early Childhood Education Josefina Prieto

511

Indigenizing Outdoor Play in New Zealand: A Conversation Analysis Approach Amanda Bateman, Margie Hohepa and Tim Bennett

530

PART VI LINKS BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE (Editor – Kristi Lekies) 545 34

Investigating Children’s Collecting Behavior Outdoors Kristi Lekies, Thomas Beery and Jed Brensinger

35

Enhancing the Outdoor Learning Spaces for Pre-Primary Classes in Western Ethiopia Valerie Huggins

36

Outdoor Play and Learning in Preschools in South Africa Judy Van Heerden and Marié Botha

37

Early Childhood Teachers’ (Pre- and Compulsory School Teachers) Use of the Outdoor Environment in Children’s Learning about Living Beings Kristín Norðdahl, Jóhanna Einarsdóttir and Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir

547

562

578

594

38

Storied Landscapes: Children’s Experiences and the ‘Sense’ of Place Kari-Anne Jørgensen

609

39

The Magic of Outdoor Play: A Phenomenological Hermeneutic Approach Merete Lund Fasting

630

40

The Benefits of Children’s Outdoor Free Play Activities: Examining Physical Activity in Japan Sachiko Kitano

645

Index 655

In memory of our friend and colleague Zis¸an Güner Alpaslan†

List of Figures   2.1 A schema of the environment as potential affordances, the actualization of which is regulated by the fields of promoted, free and constrained action (Kyttä, 2004, p. 182) 47   2.2 Affordance is located between agent and environment and mediated by the sociocultural historical context in which both reside (Waters, 2011) 48   2.3 Conceptual model for consideration of interactional affordance 51   2.4 A simplified model of the interactional affordance of a space (from Waters, 2013) 52   6.1 A well-used Forest School site 102  9.1 Risky Play Meets Nature Play project before the installation (Photo: Sara Brunelle) 149  9.2 Risky Play Meets Nature Play project after the installation (Photo: Sara Brunelle) 149   9.3 Use of vegetation to address microclimate conditions (from the Seven Cs Informational Guide, image by Kate Stefuik) 150   9.4 Textured pavement in the Garden City Play Environment (Photo: Tasha Sangha) 151   9.5 Aerial photo of the Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler) 152  9.6 Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler) 152  9.7 Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler) 153  9.8 Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler) 153  9.9 Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler) 154  9.10 Terra Nova Play Environment by Hapa Collaborative (Photo: Tasha Sangha) 154  9.11 Terra Nova Play Environment Hapa Collaborative (Photo: Tasha Sangha) 155 14.1 Overview of the study design 236 14.2 Overview of the data collected 236 15.1 Hierarchy of learning in nature (Braute & Bang, 1994; translated by Jørgensen, 2014) 243 17.1 Categories of play on open space and undefined areas in different playgrounds in percentage of play sequences 273 A.1 Artistic representation of sense of being (left to right) inside, outside and beyond 292 A.2 ‘Waves’ between adult and child 292 A.3 Flow and relationship. Detailing two-way learning 293 A.4 Grids representing structure across three spaces of inside, outside and beyond 294 A.5 Adult role level of structure appears to be more balanced in the wilder spaces 294 A.6 Connection of relationship in nature pedagogy between adult and child 294 19.1 Historical pillars, dominant discourses and a sustainability–nature nexus 297 19.2 Building momentum through consolidating and broadening the discourses in contemporary contexts 306 21.1 The girl’s map of her summer camp (Kuoljok, 2010: 63; drawn by Sunna Kuoljok Baer and used with permission) 339 21.2 The walking path and digital map (courtesy of Lise Merethe Eira) 341 21.3 Animal tracks (courtesy of Lise Merethe Eira) 342 21.4 Are we lost? (courtesy of Lise Merethe Eira) 343

xii

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

21.5 Finally, the centre in sight again (top right) (courtesy of Lise Merethe Eira) 23.1 Factors for an optimum environment, as stated by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in General Comment no. 17 (2013: 32) 25.1 Searching for avaalaqiat (Photo credit: Author) 25.2 Collecting the branches (Photo credit: Author) 25.3 Preparing the branch backpack (Photo credit: Author) 25.4 Map of Nunavik in the western hemisphere (Photo credit: Cartographaphic Services- Makivik Corporation) 25.5 Elder-educator Elisapi Weetaluktuk (Photo credit: Author) 25.6 Alliat- willow mat (Photo credit: Author) 30.1 CONSORT 2010 flow diagram (Schulz et al., 2010) 31.1 Hedegaard’s (2009) model of perspectives. (Reproduced with the author’s ­permission) 31.2 Proposed model for analysing perspectives in Indigenous contexts. (Adapted from Hedegaard’s (2009) model of perspectives) 32.1 Key elements of Naturalizar 32.2 Naturalizar Educativamente’s program 36.1 Exploring, discovering and planting seeds and trees (Photo collage – ST40) 38.1 To the Captain [Photo: Author] 38.2 Narrative maps: The island and the forest 38.3 Narrative maps: The island and the forest [Design: Linn Alexandra Lerdal Reier from a concept by the author] 38.4 Open landscapes [Photo: Author] 38.5 Entrance to the Captain’s ‘underworld’ [Photo: Author] 38.6 Reading a field guide [Photo: Author] 39.1 Children in the den [Photo: Author] 39.2 Birk in his favourite tree [Photo: Author] 40.1 The standards for the establishment of kindergartens 40.2 Basic motor skills of young children 40.3 Building a fire at Kobe University Lab. Kindergarten 40.4 Fishing at Akashi Park

344 369 396 397 397 399 404 405 483 500 502 515 520 590 609 618 619 621 621 623 638 641 646 649 650 651

List of Tables   1.1 Classical theories of play 27   1.2 Modern and cognitive theories of play 31   2.1 The broad categories that describe the fields of consideration for interactional affordance 50 13.1 Overview of patterns of unsustainability, inspired by Mellor (2005) 216 17.1 Revised play observational tool based on Frost (1992) 270 17.2 First results of improved play observation instrument 272 20.1 A typology of values in nature 321 24.1 The world’s languages 382 32.1 Naturalizar’s settings and numbers benefitting to date 523 34.1 Frequency of collected items 553 36.1 Places and spaces for outdoor play and learning 587 36.2 Outdoor play for learning and development 589

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

The Editors Tim Waller is Emeritus Professor of Child and Family Studies in the Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education at Anglia Ruskin University. Tim is a Convener of the Outdoor Play and Learning SIG in the European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA). He worked in higher education for over twenty years and previously taught in nursery, infant and primary schools in London. His research interests include wellbeing, outdoor learning, pedagogy and social justice in early childhood. Tim is currently coordinator of the Young Children, Public Spaces and Democracy project (BRIC), funded by the EU from 2014–17. BRIC involves young children, preschool teachers and families engaging in public spaces in their communities in Italy, Sweden and England. From 2012–14 Tim led the UK research contributing to the SUPREME project (Suicide Prevention by Internet and Media Based Mental Health Promotion), aimed at developing an internet-based mental health promotion and suicide preven­tion programme, targeting young people aged 14–24 and was also previously Co-Director of the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Role and Impact of Early Years Professionals (in England) – commissioned by the Children’s Workforce Development Council (2009–12). Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér PhD has a background as a preschool teacher. She is employed as an Associate Professor within early childhood education at the School of Education, Culture and Communication (UKK), Mälardalen University, Sweden. Her research focus is on education for sustainability and children’s participation and agency within policy and practices – indoors and outdoors. Since 2008, she has been convener of the Special Interest Group (SIG) Play and Learning within the European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA). Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter is a Professor (PhD) in the Department of Physical Education and Health at Queen Maud University College of Early Childhood Education in Trondheim, Norway. Her primary research focus is on children’s physical play, outdoor play and risky/ thrilling play among children in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) institutions. Spaces and physical environments for children’s play and activity is also one of her interest areas within research. She has been studying child accidents and injuries in Norwegian ECEC institutions as well as how the institutions work on safety and injury prevention, and done research on Norwegian children’s experiences of participation and wellbeing in Norwegian ECEC institutions. Recently she has been involved in a project about ECEC teachers’ perceptions and practices around children’s rough-and-tumble play.

xvi

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Libby Lee-Hammond obtained her PhD from Queensland University of Technology and is currently an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Murdoch University where she teaches early childhood curriculum and critical pedagogies. Her research over the past two decades has focussed on working alongside Australian Aboriginal communities, particularly with parents and young children in early years programs both within schools and in prior to school settings. Libby is committed to addressing social inequalities through education. She has served as an advisor to government on early years education policy and has taught internationally as a guest lecturer at Linneaus University, Sweden and Sami University of Applied Sciences, Norway. Kristi Lekies is an Associate Professor in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at The Ohio State University, USA where she is a member of the environmental social science and rural sociology specializations. Her research focuses on interactions with community and natural spaces in the early part of the life span, from early childhood through young adulthood. Her interests include community and place attachment, community gardens, outdoor experiences, and children’s mobilities. Additionally, she leads an initiative to engage graduate and undergraduate students in environmental education, youth radio, and other community-based outreach activities. Shirley Wyver is a Senior Lecturer in child development at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, Australia. Her research interests are in early play and cognitive/social development. She is a chief investigator on the Sydney Playground Project which examines use of loose parts play and risk reframing on school playgrounds. Shirley also conducts research in the area of blindness/low vision and development.

The Contributors Zişan Güner Alpaslan† was a doctoral student in the Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University, Turkey till she passed away in a tragic car accident in 2015. She was a brilliant young scholar. Her research focused on outdoor play, gender equity and early childhood mathematics and science education. Eva Änggård PhD is an Associate Professor at the Department of Child and Youth studies, Stockholm University. Her field of research concerns meaning-making processes in early childhood settings. In all her research, children’s perspectives have been in focus. Research methods and materials giving children opportunities to express themselves in different ways have been used, i.e. walks with children, drawings and children’s photographs. Over the past decade she has been working with two research projects on children who participate in outdoor education. The first project was carried out in a preschool and the second one in two primary schools. In the studied settings, a large part of the time was spent in nature environments and an important aim of the research was to study children’s play and other activities in nature environments. David Ball is Professor of Risk Management and co-director of the Centre for Decision Analysis and Risk Management at Middlesex University, London. David has a DPhil in physics but, inter alia, has worked with the play community since 1986 and in particular has been

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xvii

an adviser to the UK’s Play Safety Forum since its foundation in 1993. He has a broad-based experience of how risk is managed in different sectors which provides a platform for the review and assessment of strategies used within each sector and their appropriateness bearing in mind that sector’s objectives. Amanda Bateman currently works at the University of Waikato, New Zealand as a Senior Lecturer in early childhood education. She has been Principal Investigator for funded and nonfunded research projects including international teams to explore such issues as pedagogical intersubjectivity in the early years in New Zealand, the impact of the New Zealand Christchurch earthquakes on the children living there, and storytelling in the early years in New Zealand. She has published widely from these projects including the books Early Childhood Education: The Co-Production of Knowledge and Relationships, and Children’s Knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Thomas Beery is an Assistant Professor with the University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program. He holds an EdD in Education. Tom’s current work is coastal resilience education and research. Tom has broad experience in environmental and outdoor education, from adventure education settings to elementary classrooms. Tom’s work in early childhood environmental education is focused on early childhood experiences of nature, and specifically, the study of sensory experience of place. Recent work in Sweden at the University of Kristianstad has allowed Tom the opportunity to consider Nordic ideas and programs in regard to early childhood nature experience and early childhood teacher training. Tim Bennett is an early years trained teacher based in the Waikato region of New Zealand. He has worked in various settings in New Zealand and England over the last 10 years and has a passion for nature based education and sustainability. In 2010, Tim and his colleagues began a nature based programme called Ngahere explorers which focused on allowing children to explore the unique bush settings of New Zealand through a bicultural lense. Tim also has a passion for innovative teaching practices and has been involved with several research projects in conjunction with the University of Waikato. Doris Bergen is Distinguished Professor of Educational Psychology Emerita at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, and served as chair of the department for eleven years. A focus of much of her research has been on play theory and humor development, including effects of technologyenhanced toys on play, adult memories of childhood play, and gifted children’s humor. Recent published research explored Event Related Potentials (ERP) that children’s brains exhibit during two types of videogame play. She is a Miami University Distinguish Scholar, having published twelve books and over 60 refereed articles and book chapters. Her most recent books are Technology Play and Brain Development (2016) and Brain Research and Childhood Education (2017). Angeliki Bitou  is a Nursery Nurse Manager at the Day Care Centre of OAED in Ioannina (Greece). She has held a PhD in Early Childhood since 2011 from the University of Wolverhampton in England (UK) and also has graduated with Master of Science in Childhood Studies from the University of Wales, Swansea in 2006. During her undergraduate and postgraduate studies she was a scholar of IKY (State Scholarship Foundation of Greece). She also worked for many years in Greece as an Early Years practitioner with children from 8 months until 6 years old. Her main research interest is in young children’s participation, research with children and pedagogy.

xviii

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Marié Botha was a Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria, where she teaches early childhood studies and early mathematics modules. She holds a PhD in Education. Her research interests include early childhood education, professional teacher identity, early science and mathematics. She received the ‘Project Sustain: NUFO Grant’ for research in sustainable science and mathematical teaching. Jed Brensinger received his Masters degree from The Ohio State University specializing in environmental social science. While there, he studied the connections between childhood outdoor experiences, environmental concern, and connection to nature. He currently combines these interests with his background in psychology while working at a wilderness therapy program. Sara Brunelle graduated with a Master of Landscape Architecture degree from the University of British Columbia in May 2015. During her time at UBC, Sara was a research assistant at the Child and Family Research Institute and participated in a research study that examined the effects on children’s behaviour and social interactions when access to nature and challenging play opportunities are increased in their outdoor play environments. She also helped conduct research into how the public perceives the safety of today’s playgrounds and the role of memory. Sara is currently working as a landscape designer and continues to engage dialogue about the importance of play through design and pop-up play events. Mariana Brussoni is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia. She is a scientist with the British Columbia Children’s Hospital Research Institute and the British Columbia Injury Research & Prevention Unit. Mariana is also a board member of the Child & Nature Alliance of Canada. Trained as a developmental psychologist, Mariana investigates child injury prevention, including the developmental importance of children’s risky play. Current research focuses on the influence of geographic, cultural and social places on parenting related to risk and safety; the developmental importance of children’s risky play; and the impact of injury on children’s health-related quality of life. Anita Bundy has a joint appointment as Professor and Department Head in the Department of Occupational Therapy at Colorado State University and Professor of Occupational Therapy in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney. As an occupational therapist, Anita has particular interest in children’s everyday activity and especially in play. She is probably best known for her tests of play. The Test of Playfulness (ToP) is an observational assessment in which play is defined as a transaction that is relatively intrinsically motivated, internally controlled, free of unnecessary constraints, and framed as play. The Test of Environmental Supportiveness (TOES) describes the supportiveness of the environment for helping children meet their motivations for play. For more than a decade, Anita has been involved with research examining the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity, social skills, play, resilience and coping in young typically developing children and children with disabilities. The interventions, described in Chapter 30, include risk reframing with adults and placing recycled materials on school playgrounds. Natalie Canning is a Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood at The Open University. Her background is in playwork and social work, supporting children to explore personal, social and emotional development through play. Her main research is centred on young children’s play, especially how children are empowered in play. Using ethnographic and qualitative methods, she is particularly interested in children’s play preferences and what influences those decisions.

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xix

She has published within the field of professional development in early childhood, children’s play, empowerment and creative spaces. She has taught across a variety of early childhood programmes and has edited several books on Early Childhood practice, including Young Children’s Play and Creativity: Multiple Voices (2017), Implementing Quality Improvement and Change in the Early Years (2012), Play and Practice in the Early Years Foundation Stage (2011) and Reflective Practice in the Early Years (2010). Theresa Casey  is an Independent Consultant and Author; President of the International Play Association: Promoting the Child’s Right to Play (IPA), 2008–2017. Her key areas of interest are play, inclusion, children’s rights and environments. As President of IPA she coordinated the development of the General Comment on article 31 (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2013), a UN document guiding implementation of children’s play rights; she leads on IPA’s Access to Play in Crisis thematic work and on Children’s Rights and the Environment linked to the UNCRC Day of General Discussion 2016. She drafted the Scottish Government’s Play Strategy Action Plan and went on to co-chair the implementation group. Recent publications include: Under the Same Sky a toolkit on children’s rights and the environment (IPA, 2016); Inclusive Play Space Guide – Championing better and more inclusive play spaces in Hong Kong (Playright Child’s Play Association & UNICEF, 2016); Loose Parts Play (Inspiring Scotland, 2016). Yeshe Colliver is a Lecturer at the Institute of Early Childhood, Department of Educational Studies at Macquarie University, Sydney. As an educator with experience in diverse settings such as Lismore (Australia), Osaka (Japan), Ulsan (South Korea), Wakayama (Japan), Concepcion (Chile), Granada (Spain), and Honiara (Solomon Islands), he is particularly interested in cultural learning in early childhood. While the profound learning about one’s culture seems intuitive, little research has sought to investigate exactly how it occurs. Chapter 31 documents some aspects of this learning in a remote part of the Pacific, Temotu. His current work seeks to demonstrate the potential of this learning as it occurs via observation, and has yielded encouraging preliminary results (Colliver & Arguel, 2016). His other work examines parents as mediators of cultural learning in museum contexts. Through continued investigations of incidental learning, he hopes to improve our understanding of natural learning so as to incorporate them into current educational paradigms. Georgianna Duarte  is a Professor of Early Childhood Education and the A. Elwood and Juneth S. Adams Endowed Chair in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University. She has a PhD in Early Childhood Education and has a history of over 30 years teaching a variety of ECE graduate courses in the United States. As a professor and researcher, she is actively involved in examining the perceptions of children and how they view their rights as defined by the Articles of the UN Rights of the Child. She is a committed and passionate member of the Association for Child Education International. She has been involved in Migrant Early Childhood issues for over 20 years, and strongly advocates for international ethics and cross-cultural collaboration. She has written in international journals, and recently led a group of educators in Peru and Nepal. She is actively engaged in International Education Diplomacy (ACEI), and these principles permeate her international work in Peru, Nigeria, Nepal, and the border of US/MX. Dr Duarte is committed to local issues of early childhood play, language, education and equity with migrant and immigrant populations. She is a relentless advocate for equity, respect and justice for young children and families as she continues her own professional journey of deeper cultural and linguistic understanding of our planet.

xx

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

David Eager is an internationally recognised expert on the safety aspects of children’s playgrounds, trampolines, sports and recreation equipment, and amusement rides. He is an Associate Professor at UTS and teaches the graduate subject Risk Management in Engineering. He is a Fellow of Engineers Australia. He has a PhD in Engineering, 1st Class Honours Degree in Engineering; and Graduate Certificate in Dispute Resolution. He represents Australia on ISO/TC 83 Sports and recreational equipment. He also represents Australia on ISO/TC 254 Amusement rides and devices. He is the ISO expert on European Union Technical Committee CEN/TC 136 and its subcommittees. He is also the ISO liaison officer between ISO/TC 83 and ISO/TC 254. In the 70s and again in the 80s, David was a Green Beret within 1 Commando Regiment in the Australian Army Reserve. He was selected to represent 1 Commando Company on their prestigious Mountbatten Team that went on to win the 1988 Trophy. He continues to apply his risk management skills as a rock climber and bush walker, activities he learned as a child playing in the bushland adjacent to his home. Jóhanna Einarsdóttir is a Professor of Early Childhood Education and the Dean of School of Education, University of Iceland. She has been involved in several international research projects as a researcher and a consultant in her areas of expertise and published together with international colleagues. Professor Einarsdóttir is an editor of several books published in Icelandic and English. She has presented numerous papers and research results on early childhood education and educational transitions to professional and community groups nationally as well as internationally. Recently she has been conducting research on children’s views on their preschool education, and transition and continuity in early childhood education. Johanna was elected to the EECERA Board of Trustees in 2012. Sue Elliott is a Senior Lecturer in early childhood education at the University of New England, Australia and has been an advocate over two decades for education for sustainability and natural outdoor playspaces. The interfaces between education for sustainability and outdoor playspaces were the focus of her action research doctoral study and she was awarded the 2014 Early Childhood Australia Doctoral Thesis Award. Sue is an active participant in the Transnational Dialogues in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability research group and on their behalf co-edited Research in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: International Perspectives and Provocations (Davis & Elliott, 2014). A further area of research interest is ‘Bush Kinder’, an Australian adaptation of Scandinavian forest preschools. Sue has also co-ordinated early childhood consultancy projects with organisations including the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne and Zoos Victoria, contexts where threads of play, nature and sustainability can be interwoven by and with children. Kari Emilsen  is Professor in social science at Queen Maud University College of Early Childhood Education (QMUC) in Norway. Her research interests are, among others, gender and equality, and recruitment of male workers to ECEC institutions. She has also conducted research on men in outdoor preschools. She has published a comparative study of men in outdoor preschools in Norway and Austria together with Bernhard Koch in European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Emilsen is a convener of the Special interest group: ‘Gender balance in the ECEC work force’ within the EECERA organization, together with Professor Tim Rohrmann. They published papers in a Special Issue in European Early Childhood Education Research Journal: ‘Gender balance in the work force’, which they also edited, in 2015. Emilsen also recently published a book on the topic of gender issues in ECEC in Norway. Lina Engelen  is a Research Fellow at the School of Public Health and the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, Australia. Her research interest is in the intersection

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxi

between the physical environment and wellbeing. She studies how physical spaces, such as playgrounds, and modifications to them influence children’s health, healthy behaviour (such as physical activity) and social interactions. Lina is founder of the Active Spaces network supporting innovation and collaboration in research into activity in the spaces we work, learn and play. A particular interest is in the field of active play and healthy risk taking. Feyza Tantekin Erden is an Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. She received her PhD from the Florida State University in 2002. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in early childhood education. Her current research and teaching interests include classroom management, children’s play, early childhood curriculum, and gender equity in education. She has published articles in journals such as Teaching and Teacher Education, International Journal of Science Education, Early Child Development and Care, and Education. Greta Freeman is a Professor at the University of South Carolina Upstate in the Elementary Education department. She teaches undergraduate methods courses and graduate curriculum and content courses. She has been an elementary and middle school teacher and school administrator as well as a Pk-2nd grade curriculum coordinator in Western North Carolina. Dr Freeman has published numerous articles related to bullying, children and play, character education and literacy. Her current research focuses on young children and bullying, literacy assessment and higher education student issues. Tim Gill is an independent researcher, writer and consultant based in London, UK. He is interested in children’s everyday lives and the changing nature of childhood, with a focus on children’s play and free time. His book No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk-Averse Society was published in 2007, and he is the co-author of Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation Guide. Tim holds a degree in philosophy and psychology from Oxford University and a Master’s degree in philosophy from London University. In 2009 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Edge Hill University. Tim is a member of the editorial advisory board for the academic journal Children’s Geographies. He is a former director of the Children’s Play Council (now Play England) and was seconded to Whitehall in 2002 to lead the UK government’s first comprehensive review into children’s play. His website is www.rethinkingchildhood.com. Susan Herrington is a Professor in the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of British Columbia. She has been designing and studying children’s outdoor play spaces for 20 years. Her work focuses on the inclusion of natural elements and risky play in children’s play and learning environments. She is the author of Schoolyard Park (2002), On Landscapes (2009), Cornelia Hahn Oberlander: Making the Modern Landscape (2013) and Landscape Theory in Design (2016). She is a licensed landscape architect in the United States. Margie Hohepa is a tribal member of Ng¯apuhi and Te Ātiawa in the North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand and a Professor and Associate Dean M¯aori in Te Kura Toi Tangata Faculty of Education at the University of Waikato. Primary trained, Margie has also taught in English and M¯aori medium primary and M¯aori medium early childhood settings. Her field of research is M¯aori education, framed by Kaupapa M¯aori theory and research methodologies. She has recently led a project aimed at strengthening M¯aori medium early childhood and school transitions for children, as well as their families and teachers. Research interests and publications also span M¯aori medium initial teacher education, M¯aori and Indigenous language regeneration and Indigenous educational leadership.

xxii

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Robyn M. Holmes is a Professor of Psychology at Monmouth University. Her teaching and research interests reflect interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspectives. Her primary research interests are children’s play, early childhood and qualitative methods. Her most recent research explores the relationship between childhood and culture through ethnographic fieldwork in the Pacific Rim. She is also exploring the relationship between play, language and creativity in preschoolers. She is the author of two books, How Young Children Perceive Race and Fieldwork with Children (available in Chinese) and a forthcoming text in cultural psychology. She has also published numerous articles and chapters on play, sport and development. These appear in the American Journal of Play, Children’s Folklore Review, Play and Culture Studies, Child Studies in Asia-Pacific Contexts and the Journal of Sport Behavior. Valerie Huggins is the Associate Director for Teaching and Learning at the Plymouth Institute of Education of Plymouth University, UK, where she lectures in Early Childhood Studies. Before taking up her current post she worked for many years as an early years teacher and consultant and spent a year with Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO) training teacher educators in Ethiopia. Her research interests centre on approaches to promoting Early Childhood Education and Care for Sustainability, both in the UK and in Majority World contexts, through the professional development of practitioners. Valerie has recently completed a Doctorate in Education with a focus on interculturalism. Ylva Jannok Nutti is an Associate Professor at Sámi Allaskuvla/ Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino. Dr Jannok Nutti has been conducting several action research and school development project with focus on Sámi traditional knowledge, and she has an background as primary school teacher at a Sámi school in the Swedish part of Sápmi. Her doctoral dissertation focused on how to transform mathematics teaching for Sámi pupils on basis of both Sámi tradtional knowledge and national curriculum. In 2008 her research focus was ethnomathematics and she published her licentiate thesis ‘Mathematical Thinking within the Sámi Culture on the basis of the Stories of Sámi Crafters and Reindeer Herders’. Today she is head of a research project ‘Engaging the voices of Sámi children: Sustaining traditional knowledge through kindergarten, school and community knowledge transfer’. All these projects are based on Indigenous knowledge and place-based teaching approaches. Kari-Anne Jørgensen is educated as a teacher with physical education, biology and nature resource management as main subjects. PhD from the University of Gothenburg on children’s experiences in nature landscapes and its places. Working as an Associated Professor in University College of Southeast Norway. She is a Lecturer and researcher in early childhood, teacher training courses and international courses in outdoor education on bachelor, master and PhD level. KariAnne has storied landscapes and theories on phenomenology connected to embodied knowledge, and theories on experience and learning is the focus of the article presented in this Handbook. Sachiko Kitano is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Care and Education in the Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University. Her thesis on ‘Professionalization of Early Childhood Education: the Works of Early American Kindergarten Professional Organizations’ received PhD in education from Hiroshima University. She is interested in the professionalism in early childhood education and her most recent research interests are in the areas of function of professional organizations, preparation and in-service training, action research in ECE, and policy. She is the chairperson of PCERA Japan and the member of the executive board of Japan Society of Research on ECCE, Japanese Society for the Education of Young Children, and Japan Association of Research on Child Care Social Work. Her recent

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxiii

papers in English are Building Children’s Sense of Trustworthiness towards Empathy and Social Morality (2014); Promoting Action Research in Early Childhood Education (2011); Promoting Professionalism of Early Childhood Care and Education in Japan (2011); and Current Issues in Assessment in Early Childhood Care and Education in Japan (2011). Sara Knight retired from her position as an academic and course group leader at Anglia Ruskin University in 2015. She continues to work as a freelance consultant, speaker and researcher into Forest School for all ages. She has contributed to the development Forest School in the UK, publishing academic papers and text books on this subject, and has been a keynote speaker at conferences in the UK, Europe, Asia and Canada. Bernhard Koch is a Researcher and Lecturer in the field of ECEC at different universities in Austria (University of Innsbruck, University of Salzburg, University of Graz) and was senior researcher at the Faculty of Education, University of Innsbruck, in the years 2007–2016. He is the EECERA country coordinator for Austria. His research interests are the professionalization and recruitment of male workers to ECEC institutions. In the past few years he has conducted two empirical research projects about ‘men in child care’. He has published two peer-reviewed articles with colleagues from Norway and New Zealand in the European Early Childhood Research Journal. He is editor of the Austrian standard reference book Handbook for Child Care Centre Management. Kristen E. Kohm received her Master’s in Anthropology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. She is currently a PhD candidate in the Learning Sciences in the Contemporary Learning and Interdisciplinary Research programme at Fordham University. Her research interests include the relationship between play and language development and her work appears in the International Journal of Play. Helen Little is a Senior Lecturer and Early Childhood Program Director in the Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Australia, where she teaches on undergraduate and postgraduate units in child development and outdoor learning environments. She is a trained early childhood teacher and previously taught in preschools and primary schools in Sydney. Her primary research interest investigates the influence of individual, social and environmental factors on children’s engagement in risk-taking behaviour in outdoor play. Her current focus relates to how the physical features available in the outdoor environment and pedagogical practices relating to outdoor play provision in Early Childhood settings impact on children’s experiences of risk-taking in play. Antje Luchs  is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Sports Science, University of Bremen, Germany. She completed her PhD in the field of biomechanical gait analysis at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. Her area of research is in movement science, especially with regard to outdoor play, movement and physical activity of children in urban life. The research focus lies in the interrelationship between urban environments and the play activity taking place in them. After having successfully worked on the improvement of free play observational tools, Antje Luchs transfers her results into recommendations for stakeholders and designers to plan and create playgrounds that are closer to the children playing on them. Merete Lund Fasting is in the Department of Public Health, Sports and Nutrition, University of Agder, Norway. She is PhD in outdoor play and learning among 10 years old children in the

xxiv

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

south of Norway. She observed the children in their self-induced play. She played with them, biked with them and talked with them during school hours and in their leisure time. Her latest research has been in 2 kindergardens; where she tried to understand the children’s world of outdoor play. She has published in Norwegian until now and her last article (written together with Knut Londal) is titles as ‘The magical time outdoor, and focusing holistic learning outdoor’. Her research interest is outdoor play, outdoor life/friluftsliv, outdoor learning, places outdoor, movement, creativity and public health. Olav B. Lysklett is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Activity and Health at Queen Maud University College of early childhood education. He teaches physical activity and health in the early childhood education and care program. His research focuses on children’s physical activity and fitness, nature preschools and motor learning. Sarah MacQuarrie has a MA(Hons) in Psychology from the University of Glasgow, a MSc in Research methods in Psychology and a PhD in Psychology both from the University of Strathclyde. Her research and lecturing experience includes the University of Strathclyde, the University of the Highlands and Islands and the Robert Gordon University. She is a lecturer in Psychology of education at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester. Her research is focused on the application of psychology in education and considers the relationship between theory and practice in education. Particular research interests include investigating ways to support teachers and professionals in education with their implementation of research based practice, with focused themes of research including bilingual education, group work and outdoor learning. Sarah is a Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Kwi-Ok Nah is a Professor of Early Childhood Education at Soonchunhyang University, South Korea. She studied for her PhD at Oklahoma State University, USA. She also worked in the UK as a visiting academic at the Institute of Education, University of London in 2008 and at Anglia Ruskin University in 2014. Her research interests include international comparative study, outdoor learning, and mathematics education in early childhood. Geraldine Naughton is a Professor in Paediatric Exercise Science in the School of Exercise Science, at the Melbourne campus of the Australian Catholic University. Her research focuses on improving health-related outcomes through physical activity, in young people. In the preschool setting her research involves promoting play in multidisciplinary teams for children from highly vulnerable families. She is currently a member of the Victorian State Government’s Task Force on Sporting Injury Prevention. Kristín Norðdahl  is an Associate Professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland. Kristín has an undergraduate degree in biology from the University of Lund in Sweden, and a Master’s degree and PhD in education studies from the University of Iceland. The areas of teaching and research interests are science education, environmental education and sustainability education as well as outdoor learning and teaching. She has presented papers and research results on these issues and participated in research and developmental projects nationally as well as internationally. Clare Nugent has worked education since 1996 in the secondary, primary and early years sectors. Her particular interest in nature-based education developed from her early background in outdoor education coupled with raising her own young family. Clare completed her MEd in

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxv

Early Childhood followed by her PhD at the University of Edinburgh focusing on nature kindergartens as social constructions. Most recently, Clare has returned to teaching Design Technology and continues her research interests through writing for academic journals on her research methods. Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir is an Associate Professor of Education at the School of Education, University of Iceland and the Head of Faculty of Teacher Education from 2013–2017. She did her Master’s degree at Aberdeen University, Scotland and her PhD at the University of Iceland. Her research interests include children’s learning and concept development, science education, classroom research and teacher education. She has presented papers and research results on these issues. In 2016 her book ‘The Brain Controls Everything’ Children’s Ideas about the Body, built on her doctoral study, was published by IPA – Information Age Publishing. Pelusa Orellana is the Associate Dean for research and Full Professor of reading at the School of Education at Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. She has a PhD in Education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is one of the creators of Dialect, a technology-based platform for assessing Spanish reading abilities. She has published several journal articles and book chapters in Chile and other countries. Dr Orellana has also been the principal investigator in several grants in Chile. Her research focuses on reading development, reading assessment and diagnosis, and reading motivation. She has also served as curriculum advisor and textbook development advisor for the Chilean Ministry of Education. Josefina Prieto has been Director of the ‘Naturalizar Educativamente’ program at ‘Fundación Ilumina’, a Chilean non-profit organization founded in 2009. The initiative is the first Outdoor Learning Early Childhood Program in her country. Prior her joining to Ilumina, Josefina worked as an independent landscape designer for more than 10 years. She holds a degree in Agricultural Engineering with a Diploma in Resource Economics from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and a Master in Architecture in Studies of Landscape from the University of Sheffield, UK (1999). Josefina is married and has five children, who have been her inspiration to create Naturalizar from scratch with a brilliant team of handson, life-long educators in scarce opportunities’ counties. Their collective dream is to transform their Outdoor Learning and Play program into a Chilean, and why not, a Latinamerican public policy. Mary Caroline Rowan is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at Concordia University, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. She recently defended her PhD, titled, ‘Thinking with Nunangat in Proposing Pedagogies for/with Inuit Early Childhood Education’, at the University of New Brunswick, where she was a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholar. Carol is a member of the Common Worlds Research Collective. She has worked as a visting scholar at the University of Canterbury in Aotearoa/New Zealand and at the Sami Allaskuvla in the Norwegian part of Saapmi. Her research interests include documenting encounters with land, water and ice as a strategy for accessing Indigenous ontologies in the practice of early childhood education. Anette Sandberg is Professor of Early Childhood Education and Director of Research, School of Education, Culture and Communication, Mälardalen University, Sweden. Anette’s thesis from 2003 was about The Playworld of Grown ups. A Study of Adults’ Play Experiences. She has been responsible for the Early Childhood Education Group at Mälardalen University since 2006. She

xxvi

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

teaches and supervises in the area of early childhood education. Anette has done research on preschool and school for many years. Her current research interests include for example professionalism, learning and participation, young children’s possibilities to participate in care situations and be able to share their experiences. Her interest in environments can be traced in most of them. Olivia N. Saracho  is Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership at the University of Maryland at College Park. She has taught Head Start, preschool, kindergarten, and elementary classes. She is a former bilingual teacher in Brownsville, Texas, and has written several articles in that area. Her current research and writing is in the field of early childhood education. She has conducted research on children’s play, emergent literacy, and family literacy. In relation to the area of play, she has written numerous articles such as Young children’s play and cognitive style, The challenge of educational play, Children’s play in the visual arts and literature, and many others. In addition, she is the author of An Integrated Play-Based Curriculum for Young Children (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group) and co-editor of Contemporary Perspectives on Play in Early Childhood Education (Information Age Publishing) and Multiple Perspectives on Play in Early Childhood Education (State University of New York Press). Susan G. Solomon is an Author, Curator, Lecturer and Consultant. Trained as an art historian (PhD University of Pennsylvania, 1997), she has a strong interest in seeing playgrounds become a vital component of public space. She is an advocate for merging maximum playability with good design. To that end, she has written two books: American Playgrounds: Revitalizing Community Space (University Press of New England, 2005) and The Science of Play: How to Build Playgrounds that Enhance Children’s Development (University Press of New England, 2014; Korean edition, Sonamoo Publishing Company, 2016). Susan also writes the blog After the Deadline that appears every other month (www.thescienceofplay.com/blog). Her consulting company is Curatorial Resources & Research in Princeton, New Jersey. Maria Francisca Valenzuela is the Associate Dean of the School of Education at Universidad de los Andes, Chile. She is also a researcher and Associate Professor at the same university. She holds a Master’s in Science in Educational Psychology from the Pontificia Universidad Católica. Professor Valenzuela teaches oral language and early literacy courses in the Early Childhood Program. She has developed and published several instruments to assess oral language abilities (phonological awareness and semantic awareness) and several articles in the same area. She is a member of the Literacy Research Association and has also has participated in different projects related to oral language strategies and teacher training. Professor Valenzuela has been part of various national education projects, among which are the executive team that developed standards for the initial training of early childhood teachers, and online courses of language and literacy for teacher’s training. Judy Van Heerden is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria. She is involved with early childhood and foundation phase modules in the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. She has a PhD in Education. She is a laureate innovation education award winner of the University of Pretoria for the development of curriculum and learning materials. Her research interests include quality in early learning centres; art, science and technology in the Foundation phase; learning through play and learning approaches in early childhood education. Claire Warden has authored a number of articles and books in the field of Nature Pedagogy. The most recent book, Learning with Nature-Embedding Outdoor Practice (2015, Sage),

Notes on the Editors and Contributors

xxvii

brings together defining elements of her Nature Pedagogy. Experienced as a lecturer in Scotland, she now works as a consultant and visiting academic in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada and Singapore. Her pathway holds a broad variety of experience from community support work to teaching through the pedagogy of nature inside, outside and beyond the fences into wilder spaces. She is on the international advisory boards of the Children and Nature Network (USA); International school grounds Alliance; and World forum foundation (Nature Action Collaborative focus group). In 2010, she and her husband founded Living Classrooms as a charity to work in nature to support capacity building within marginalized communities. In 2016, they founded the International Association of Nature Pedagogy to support international connections between nature based networks. Claire’s most recent award was an International Educational Leadership award in 2015 and she is currently engaged in her PhD with a research focus of Nature Pedagogy. Jane Waters  is the Assistant Dean Research in the Faculty of Education and Communities, University of Wales Trinity Saint David. Having worked initially as a classroom teacher, then as Director of an undergraduate Early Childhood Studies programme and then Head of Initial Teacher Education, she now works most closely with postgraduate research students. Jane’s doctoral research focussed on adult–child interaction, sustained shared thinking and the affordance of different educative spaces. Her research interests lie in early childhood education; adult–child interaction in educative spaces; young children’s agency and voice; and young children’s experiences of outdoor spaces. She is passionate about the potential in Wales for innovative, engaging early years education as a result of the Foundation Phase framework, introduced across Wales from 2008, and sits on the Welsh Government’s Foundation Phase expert group. Philip Waters  is co-founder and Creative Director of I Love Nature, a social enterprise in Cornwall, UK, that provides training, outdoor environmental education, play consultancy and research. With an interest in children’s fiction and a long career working in various children’s environments, Phil’s work brings together play, narrative and nature within a form of praxis called Narrative Journey. This has more recently culminated in a doctorate with the European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, where his major research interests include children’s nature-based play, stories and storying, environmental education for young children, and playful praxis in research.

Acknowledgements The editors of this Handbook wish to make: An acknowledgement of the children, families and educators whose experiences and stories have shaped this work, and; An acknowledgment of our collective responsibility for the preservation of the natural world for future generations. We are also very grateful for the help and support we received throughout this project from SAGE, in particular to Matt Oldfield and Jude Bowen. In addition, we would like to thank all the contributing authors for their collegiality, patience and willingness to engage with reviewer and editorial feedback. The Handbook has also benefited from the encouragement and guidance of members of the Outdoor Play and Learning Special Interest Group (SIG) within the European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA). Finally, we would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their thoughtful and valuable feedback: Victoria Carr, University of Cincinnati, USA Ingunn Fjortoft, Telemark University College, Norway Trond Loge Hagen, Queen Mauds University-College, Norway Anna Kilderry, Deakin University, Australia Ingrid Engdahl, Stockholm University, Sweden Aida Figueiredo, University of Aveiro, Portugal Margaret Kernan, International Child Development Initiatives, Ireland Jane Merewether, Curtin University, Australia Anita Niehues, Lenoir-Rhyne University, USA Claire Warden, International Association of Nature Pedagogy, UK

Introduction T i m W a l l e r, E v a Ä r l e m a l m - H a g s é r, E l l e n B e a t e H a n s e n S a n d s e t e r, L i b b y L e e - H a m m o n d , Kristi Lekies and Shirley Wyver

OUTLINE, AIMS AND SCOPE We are very pleased to publish this Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning with SAGE. The Handbook includes chapters from authors representing a wide range of countries from across the world, including Africa, Australasia and Asia Pacific countries, Europe and North and South America. The Handbook has its roots in over 10 years of dialogue, writing and research by members of the Outdoor Play and Learning Special Interest Group (SIG) within the European Early Childhood Education Research Association (EECERA). However, whilst the editors are all members of this SIG, the Handbook has a much wider remit than early childhood education. The scope of the Handbook is therefore to take account of the whole of childhood from birth and focus on a range of play-space types, including equipment and both outdoor play in public play spaces, natural environments and institutional contexts. The aim is to provide a retrospective, current, critical and prospective analysis.

Initially this approach is articulated through a firm theoretical underpinning and also includes alternative understandings of learning outside of institutions, children’s geographies, such as current research on children’s ‘independent’ mobility, and older children’s engagements with their local neighbourhoods. The present Handbook complements the SAGE Handbook of Play and Early Childhood (Brooker, Blaise, & Edwards, 2014). Readers seeking a stronger focus on the early childhood context, including play curricula, should consider reading this valuable collection. Most published studies in this field concern the outdoor contexts of Western childhood. Whilst the environments of traditional and Indigenous communities around the world have also been increasingly affected by global capitalism, often with far greater impact than on the Western world, these communities have a rich understanding and deep relationship with the natural environment that has been celebrated and revered

2

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

for millennia. From a postcolonial theoretical view, Gupta (2013), for example, raises questions about the risk of cultural ‘incursion’ as dominant Western early childhood pedagogies and ideologies contribute to globalization and change in national early childhood education policies the world over. Gupta stresses that ‘Western’ concepts cannot be readily and easily implemented within the practical context of culturally diverse worldviews (2013, p. 223), and argues for a hybrid third space – a third space pedagogy. That opens possibilities to acknowledge both the local and the global, and the coexistence of diverse educational approaches. We are therefore concerned to include representation from the perspectives of Indigenous communities in this volume. The field of literature and research concerning children and young people’s experiences, play and opportunities in outdoor environments has benefited from a wide range of disciplines, including anthropology, early childhood and childhood studies, ecology, Indigenous studies, education, environmental study, health, history, medical science, philosophy, play, psychology, sociology, sports and exercise study, and sustainability research. In order to introduce readers to the range of chapters in the Handbook, we now offer a brief overview of some key debates in the field. We take the view that concepts relating to beliefs and approaches to engagement with outdoor environments are culturally, socially, historically and economically constructed and vary over time (as Modern Childhoods, Waller, 2014).

DIMINISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTDOOR PLAY AND LEARNING AND THE ‘CALL OF THE WILD’ In many countries throughout the world over the past 40 years or so, there is evidence that children and young people generally have

increasingly limited time outside and may be losing connection to nature. Subsequently, it appears that a significant increase in traffic, a decline in spaces (including local streets) for play and a rapid growth in a ‘culture of fear’ (Furedi, 2002) have led to declining autonomy for children to be able to play outside, visit local play spaces with friends or travel to school unaccompanied. Beames and Brown (2014) also assert that diminishing opportunities for outdoor play have also coincided with the commercialization and ‘Disneyfication’ of Western childhoods. As Monbiot (2015) argues, ‘Children are being airbrushed from our towns and cities. No wonder they stay indoors.’ In the UK, for example, since the 1970s, the area in which children roam without adults has decreased by almost 90% (Moss, 2012). Moss also reports television viewing figures which show that children between ages four and nine spend over 17 hours a week watching television. This together with the growing availability of other screen-based entertainment indicates that for many children play is increasingly homebased and sedentary, a situation that Louv refers to as ‘well meaning, protective house arrest’ (Louv, cited in Moss, 2012, p.  4). However, given the choice, it seems that many children would like to be able to play outside. A study comparing the lives of children in the UK with those in Sweden and Spain to investigate why the UK was placed at the bottom of UNICEF’s 2007 ranking of children’s wellbeing indicated that the lack of opportunity for free outdoor play was a significant contributor to the poor wellbeing of children in the UK (Ipsos MORI and Nairn, 2011). Also, a survey conducted by UNICEF (2013) on what children needed to be happy found that, for children, the three most important aspects were time (especially with families), friendships and being outdoors. In addition, growing academic demands are also seen as having a negative impact on children’s access to outdoor environments within preschool and school (Waite & Pratt, 2011). Bae (2010) also acknowledges how

Introduction

current ‘neo-liberal’ or ‘new management discourses’ have led to policies in many countries that have impacted adversely on education, giving a greater focus on education inside the classroom. Waller and Davis (2014) contend that education in many countries is currently enacted within a background of the ‘school readiness’ and ‘performativity’ agendas where the focus is on the transmission of a centrally determined curriculum that is formally assessed, one consequence of which is that children spend less time outside in the environment. The ‘readiness for school’ discourse has also been strongly criticized by Moss (2013). Furthermore, Burriss and Burriss (2011), investigating the use of the outdoors in 173 school districts in the United States (USA), found that more school districts reported that the time spent outdoors had decreased than those that reported it had increased. These findings support other research indicating that it is a national trend in the USA for children to spend less time outdoors engaging with nature (Larson, Green, & Cordell, 2011). Research by Shaw, Watson, Frauendienst, Redecker, Jones and Hillman (2013) further underlines the erosion of children’s freedom and independent mobility over the last 40 years. For instance, only 25% of children aged 5–11 years in the UK were allowed to travel to and from school on their own in 2011, compared with 86% in 1971. Whilst children’s loss of the ‘right to roam’ outside appears to be a significant trend it would, however, be false to claim it is the situation for all children, in all countries. International comparisons with equivalent groups of children show that this decline in freedom is less evident in Germany. For example, half of children in the German research (Shaw et al., 2013) were able to travel home from school on their own at age seven compared with less than 5% of children in the UK, suggesting that cultural attitudes to risk and safety as well as differences in local environments may play a significant part. The Wild Network contend that there are 11 barriers for children’s opportunities to be

3

outside in natural environments (The Wild Network, nd). These barriers are grouped into four aspects: fear (‘stranger danger’, riskaverse culture, dangerous streets, ‘carlamity’), time (time-poor parents, nature-starved curriculum, lack of free-range play), space (vanishing green space, Play Inc., kidvertising) and technology (rise of screen time). Whilst many adults and parents would argue that these claims are merited and they are supported by some as evidence, as discussed here and elsewhere in the Handbook, we are wary of suggesting a simplistic dichotomy between ‘screen time’ and ‘green time’. Digital technologies are now part of the lives of many children (Waller, 2014), but it does not necessarily mean that technology always restricts children’s outdoor time; many children have both and the picture is much more complex, and some children have the opportunity for a great variety of leisure activities, including sports, outside. Björnsdóttir et al. (2009, cited in Norðdahl & Jóhannesson, 2015), for example, conducted a study in Iceland with children aged 6–14 years that revealed 80–90% of the sample participated in outdoor activities from one to four hours per week. The general decline in access to outdoor play spaces has been paralleled by an unprecedented rise in anxiety over children’s safety. It appears that parental anxiety and fear of abduction has had the most pervasive effect on children’s play (Lindon, 2011). Evidence from a number of recent surveys (Gill, 2012; Lindon, 2011) shows that not only are few parents happy for their children to play outside without an adult present, but that many children are also anxious about the danger of abduction or murder if they play outdoors. Paradoxically, there is no evidence to support this fear as incidents of child abduction, although tragic, are extremely rare and have remained largely unchanged over the last 40 years or more (Lindon, 2011). Furthermore, a key feature of play outdoors is that children seek to push out boundaries, test their own limits and take risks (Little & Eager, 2010; Sandseter, 2009; Waller & Tovey,

4

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

2014). Kernan and Devine (2010) found contrasting views regarding children’s safety in the outdoors. On the one hand, there are views about the dangerous environments from which children need protection, and on the other hand, the outdoors is seen as an educational environment important for children to experience. However, research in Norway by Sandseter (2007, 2009) also noted that when practitioners regard risky play as positive and necessary, they are willing to support children’s reasonable risk-taking, even when this exceeds their own tolerance of risk. Tovey’s research in England on preschool teachers’ perspectives of risk suggested that where teachers felt supported within their teams, had a shared approach to risk, challenge and safety outdoors, and understood the benefits of risktaking, they were confident to offer experiences that included some element of risk and challenge (Tovey, 2010). It appears, though, that there are some wide variations in the recognition and value teachers afford risk-taking and generally a more positive approach to risk outdoors is prevalent in the Nordic countries compared with the USA, the UK and Australia (Ernst & Tornabene, 2012; Little, Sandseter, & Wyver, 2012; MacQuarrie, Nugent, & Warden, 2015; Sandseter, 2012). For example, preschool student teachers in the USA mentioned safety concerns as one of the reasons for not wanting to use the natural environment in children’s education (Ernst & Tornabene, 2012). One of the serious consequences of the erosion of the ‘right to roam’ is that disconnection from nature appears to be far greater for many children than it ever was. There are also generational significances, as Ward Thompson, Aspinall and Montarzino (2008, p. 132), in a study about how adults use green places, found that children who had not had access to outdoor environments in childhood were unlikely to spend as much time in the outdoors as adults, with consequent impacts on adult health, wellbeing and lifestyle. Following on from Louv’s (2006) persuasive ‘last child in the woods’ hypothesis,

British naturalist and writer Chris Packham has argued: ‘The children out in the woods, out in the fields enjoying nature on their own – they are extinct’ (in MacFarlane, 2015, p. 324). There is growing evidence to support the worrying claims that many children are losing their connection with nature. Worse still, children in urban environments are particularly disadvantaged. A report by King’s College in London (2011) found that in the UK: • 1–3 million children never go anywhere that might include nature; • 40% spend less time in nature than previously; • 10% visit nature with school but only 5% in deprived communities; and • One in ten 5- to 16-year-olds are diagnosed with a mental health disorder.

Further, the Natural Childhood report for the National Trust in the UK (Moss, 2012) revealed the growing gap between children and nature. The report found that less than one in ten children regularly played in wild spaces, it said, compared to half of all children a generation ago. In addition, Bragg (2013), in a report for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), concluded that four out of five children in the UK were not adequately ‘connected to nature’.

‘THE EARTH IS OUR MOTHER’: NATURAL CONNECTIONS TO THE LAND In the Natural Connections report, Waite, Passy, Gilchrist, Hunt and Blackwell (2016, EIN015, p. 2), define a connection to nature as referring to ‘an individual’s subjective sense of their relationship with the natural world’. The relatively recent focus in Western environmental discourse around natural connections to the land, traceable at least as far back in time to the philosophy of Rousseau (2003 [1762]) and influenced more recently by Rachel Carson’s seminal work Silent

Introduction

Spring (1962), is of course not a new concept and is a ‘way of being’ in traditional cultures across the world. Many studies (Chawla, 1998; Wells & Lekies, 2006; Wilson, 1997) emphasize children’s experiences of and interaction with nature as a significant means for cultivating children’s interest in and concern for the environment. However, recent research has shown that simply being in nature cannot be seen as a remedy for consolidating environmentally friendly attitudes or behaviours (Sandell & Öhman, 2013). In a study by Ärlemalm-Hagsér (2013b), teachers’ understandings of human–nature relationships in early childhood outdoor care and respect for nature as concepts were taken for granted and few critical questions were raised about the human–nature relationship. Further, Chawla and Flanders Cushing (2007) point out that notions about how pro-environmental behaviours are fostered often falter as a result of simplistic understandings about the relationship between experiences in nature and behaviour changes. They stress that these issues are inextricably linked to politics and children’s ownership and involvement or cultural worldviews about the human connectedness to nature. For traditional and Indigenous cultures and First Nations communities such as the Pacific Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, Asia, Canada and North and South America, a spiritual connection to land and the natural world has always been highly significant and is seen as central to life, wellbeing and survival. Hendriks and Hall (2008), for example, articulate Aboriginal spirituality in Australia as a natural mysticism of embodied knowledge of place. A way of being powerfully expressed by Joan Hendriks: ‘We are spiritual people who believe we come from the land. In a sense we are the land and the land owns us. The earth is our Mother’ (Hendriks & Hall, 2008, p. 11). However, although Indigenous communities may share similar values regarding the centrality of nature to wellbeing, they are diverse and individually

5

unique communities. As Lee-Hammond and Jackson-Barrett (2013) note, there are dangers in conflating all ‘thoughts, practices and beliefs’ of every Indigenous community as one, both within particular geographical regions and across the world. Colonization, industrialization and global capitalism have clearly had a tragic and serious impact on many traditional communities, including spiritual, social and cultural practices. For example, in Australia, many Aboriginal people now live in urban spaces where maintaining a connection to natural places is much more problematic than when living in rural environments (Beresford, Partington, & Gower, 2012). As Lee-Hammond and Jackson-Barrett (2013, p.  135) note, ‘What was previously a life completely in tune with nature, the seasons, the animals, the plants and a sustainable human inhabitation of the earth has been replaced by educational, social, emotional and economic disadvantage.’ However, a range of published work (for example, Bonython, 2003; Hendriks and Hall, 2008; Kickett-Tucker, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2003; Rose, 1996) has demonstrated that ‘the significance of place and identity has not been diluted in the hearts and minds of Aboriginal people in twenty-first century Australia’ (Lee-Hammond & JacksonBarrett, 2013, p. 139). There is clearly much to learn about connection to nature from Indigenous communities around the world. There are also strong cultural values and traditions that are currently causing tension as Western-dominated views of play take hold (Grieshaber, 2016). In Asian countries, Confucian values are often in direct conflict with notions of free play. Naftali (2010) has argued that in China state policies embracing Western notions of play and childhood freedom are closely related to neo-liberal reform agendas rather than understanding of children and childhoods. We feel strongly that this Handbook should include the voices of traditional cultures (see Chapters 20, 21 and 25).

6

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Waite et  al. (2016) argue that significant proportions of the population (particularly children and young people) are ‘disconnected’ (physically, spiritually or emotionally) from the natural world, and a growing body of literature indicates that humans need contact with nature for their health and wellbeing (for example, Capaldi, Dopko, & Zelenski, 2014; Dowdell, Gray, & Malone, 2011). Moreover, Rackham (1986, p. 9) articulates a similar trend in The History of the Countryside through describing four ways in which ‘landscape is lost’: through the loss of beauty, the loss of freedom, the loss of wildlife and vegetation, and the loss of meaning. It may be that people can develop a ‘natural capital’ (similar to Bourdieu’s [1990] concept of social and cultural capital) involving knowledge about wildlife, confidence in the natural world and awareness of how to engage in natural environments and feeling for nature. It would appear that ‘natural capital’ has been prevalent in Indigenous cultures throughout history. The argument for a natural connection is also closely aligned to the concept of biophilia, which Wilson (1993, p. 31) defines as an evolutionary theory concerning ‘the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms. Innate means hereditary and hence part of ultimate human nature’. Wilson proposes that biophilia is part of our genetic disposition to both survive and thrive through interacting positively with natural environments, where we feel more content and function more effectively. Bird (2007), drawing on work by Kaplan and Kaplan (1995), makes the case for a close relationship between biophilia and attention restoration theory, which argues that the natural environment provides the most effective restorative environment and psychophysiological stress recovery theory (where exposure to nature can invoke an immediate positive response resulting in a rapid reduction in stress). As with the biophilia hypothesis, it is assumed to be a result of some deep genetic code within human beings. There are,

however, several limitations to this theory which are summarized by Joye and De Block (2011, p. 189). Firstly, they contend that the concept is open to a variety of interpretations that sometimes conflict. Secondly, the empirical findings on which the theory is based may also support an alternative hypothesis and finally, the reasoning informing the biophilia hypothesis is unclear. Nevertheless, the concept of biophilia is useful in thinking about the human–nature relationship, particularly in the early part of the life span. In the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), being outdoors, especially in nature, is seen as part of a ‘good childhood’ and this is generally reflected in the preschool and school curricula (Ärlemalm-Hagsér & Sandberg, 2013; Einarsdóttir & Wagner, 2006; Norðdahl & Jóhannesson, 2015). In addition, recently there has been growth in and popularity of the number of outdoor kindergartens and schools in the Nordic countries, with many being oversubscribed. There has also been increased awareness of the potential and benefits of outdoor education through the rise of the Forest School movement, both in Europe and in other parts of the world. Forest School involves regular visits to natural, wild environments, usually with a trained Forest School leader. Forest Schools have a long tradition in the UK and in Scandinavia as a way of giving children play and learning experiences in the natural world (Waller & Tovey, 2014). By the 1980s, they became an integral part of the Danish early years programme and influenced the development of the Forest School movement in the UK (Knight, 2009; Maynard, 2007). Knight (2009), for example, notes the substantial increases in uptake of Forest School by schools across the UK and there are now sites in urban as well as rural areas. In addition, in Australia, the UK and elsewhere, ‘Nature Pedagogy’ has also become popular, particularly in early childhood education, and research is emerging to support a critically reflective process to deepening the understandings of Nature Pedagogy

Introduction

(Elliott & Chancellor, 2014). Claire Warden describes Nature Pedagogy as ‘understanding our sense of belonging and our sense of working with nature’. Warden further argues that ‘there is a pedagogical shift when you move outside, it is learning with nature not just teaching about it’ (Warden, 2015, p. 4). A conceptual model and detailed case studies of Nature Pedagogy are articulated by Wynne and Gorman (2015). Also, as a result of increasing concern about the erosion of outdoor experiences, and following the publication of the Natural Childhood report (Moss, 2012), commissioned by the National Trust in the UK, a campaign to re-wild the child (see Monbiot, 2013) led to the formation of ‘Project Wild Thing’ and the Wild Network ‘to champion and support connections with nature and wildness in children and young people’ (www. thewildnetwork.com). The Wild Network has since grown to become internationally active in English-speaking countries, thus demonstrating the recognition of the importance of natural connections for many parents and children (see Monbiot, 2013). Similarly, the Children and Nature Network (www. childrenandnature.org) is another source that provides research findings, resources, training and collaborative opportunities to engage children in the natural world in the USA. Over the past decade, the work of the Children and Nature Network has expanded from the USA to include efforts throughout the world.

BENEFITS OF NATURAL CONNECTIONS Despite the perceived interest in promoting outdoor experiences for children and young people discussed above, there has been criticism from certain academic sources (Leather, 2013) that some publications in the field tended towards the ‘evangelical’ and that the evidence base demonstrating the benefit of

7

natural environments is relatively limited. Indeed, we made a similar assertion in Waller et  al. (2010). In particular, we are critical of arguments that romanticize views of bygone childhoods and neglect the many important advances that have occurred, most notably those resulting from the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by 192 countries (UNCRC, 1989), exceeding any other human rights treaty (UNICEF, 2006). We argued that the loss of outdoor play spaces for many children is one aspect of the intricate interplay of legislative, social, urban design, technological and pedagogical factors that introduce a complex set of opportunities and losses. Debates in this field can similarly run the risk of being based more on the message than the evidence if the relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces within institutions, spaces beyond and changing childhoods are viewed as static rather than dynamic and left unanalysed. However, since 2010 a number of important research studies have been published in Australia and New Zealand, Europe, the USA and Asia Pacific countries suggesting a wider evidence base demonstrating that being outside and ‘connected’ to nature can impact positively on wellbeing, academic progress, school attendance and achievement, and environmental awareness. Waite et  al. (2016), in a comprehensive review of research on connection to nature, have usefully produced a series ‘Evidence Briefs’ which summarize the growing body of evidence. Waite et  al. (2016, EIN018, p. 1) contend that the evidence demonstrates ‘a positive association between (a) population level exposure to natural environments and (b) individual use of natural environments, and a variety of positive mental health outcomes’. However, they argue that impacts appear to differ according to socioeconomic status and other demographic factors such as age or gender. What seems reasonable to claim at the time of writing this chapter (2016), due to

8

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

the number, weight and substance of current research studies, is that: a) There is a strong relationship between time spent outside in natural environments, positive wellbeing, increased happiness and better mental health (Bragg, 2013; Capaldi et al., 2014; Gill, 2014; Richardson, Cormack, McRobert, & Underhill, 2016; Wolsko & Lindberg, 2013). b) There is a strong link between exercise in natural wild places and general wellbeing (Askwith, 2014; Aspinall, Mavros, Coyne, & Roe, 2013; Mitchell, 2013;). c) The overall positive health effects of increased risky outdoor play provide greater benefit than the health effects associated with avoiding outdoor risky play (Brussoni et  al., 2015; Little et al., 2012; MacQuarrie et al., 2015; Sandseter, 2012). d) Children and young people experience outdoor environments as places of meaning and significance (Mawson, 2014; Tovey, 2007; Waite & Pratt, 2011; Waters & Maynard, 2010). e) Outdoor play supports social interaction and helps to nurture emotional understanding (Perrin & Benassi, 2009; Waite, Rogers, & Evans, 2013; Yeh, Stone, Churchill, Wheat, Brymer, & Davids, 2015). f) There is a relatively strong relationship between time spent outside in natural environments and environmental awareness, nature relatedness and positive approaches to sustainability (Ärlemalm-Hagsér, 2013a; Davis, 2010; Gurholt, 2014; Jóhannesson, Norðdahl, Óskarsdóttir, Pálsdóttir, & Pétursdóttir, 2011). g) Regular outdoor experiences include benefits for learning, motivation and achievement at school (Fägerstam, 2012; Hill & Brown, 2014; Szcepanski & Dahlgren, 2011).

Whilst the above examples demonstrate a significant increase in research studies that has paralleled general concerns about decreasing time spent in outdoor environments, there are still many gaps in the evidence base. Firstly, the voices of Indigenous peoples are almost totally absent. Secondly, there is currently very limited research from many parts of the world, including Asia, Africa and South America. To date, research in outdoor play and learning has not deeply

explored the interactions of children and young people in nature at the spiritual level. Finally, Waite et  al. (2016, EIN018, p. 5) contend that there is a need to ‘better understand the impacts of greenspaces around the school, workplace and other spaces in which people spend significant proportions of their day’. As researchers identify the benefits of outdoor play there is a risk that play will become a means to an end rather than an endpoint in itself. Understanding of the benefits has led some researchers and practitioners to recommend more outdoor time in an effort to avoid chronic illness (e.g., McCurdy, Winterbottom, Mehta, & Roberts, 2010). This type of approach encourages outdoor play within available contexts and generally following child preferences rather than being prescribed. There is the danger though that in order to promote health or education, play is undervalued. If the only value of play is in the service of health and education, it can logically be removed if other methods are found to produce the same outcome. Alexander, Frohlich and Fusco (2014) interviewed children using photo-elicitation methods and found that the categories used by researchers were not identified by children. For example, common distinctions relating to level of physical activity were not made by children. The children saw play as an end in itself and commented on the fun and challenges involved.

CONTESTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ‘NATURAL’ Taylor (2011) argues for the need to problematize the construction of a ‘special relationship’ between children and nature. She argues that we need to deconstruct the concept of wilderness ‘in order to better understand its iron grip in contemporary western environmental discourses’ (2011, p. 423). Further, Taylor contends that, paradoxically,

Introduction

the normative perception of wilderness ‘as the pinnacle of pure nature also renders it vulnerable. Rather than being perceived as a threat to us, it is now the presence of our bodies that is seen to threaten wilderness’ (2011, p. 423). Importantly, Taylor also draws attention to challenges to the idealized and ‘pristine’ nature of wilderness from Indigenous perspectives. Here Taylor refers to the work of Langton (1996), Plumwood (2003) and Spence (1999), for example, to show that whilst there has been an attempt at erasure of Indigenous people from these places, the land has never been un-peopled. Taylor (2011, p. 428) contends that ‘according to Langton, this same country that white environmentalists now refer to as un-peopled pristine wilderness, has an ancient cultural history. It is not possible to separate the mutually constitutive relationship between Indigenous people and country.’ Another perspective that needs to be further scrutinized is gender and power structures in outdoor play and learning. Warren (2016) highlights the need for further research in outdoor studies about hegemonic reproductions of gender in outdoor education. In early childhood education, ‘romantic views’ of children and play as gender-neutral and context-free have been challenged by some researchers (Blaise, 2005; MacNaughton, 2006). Previously, Thorne (1993, p. 51) discussed the constructions of gender in children’s outdoor play in terms of a ‘choreography of gender’. This ‘doing’ of gender can be seen as constructed within the specific context and can promote gender separation – girls and boys playing different themes, being in different places and preferring different materials. In contemporary critical gender research in early childhood education (Blaise, 2005; MacNaughton, 2006), theoretical perspectives have moved from the analysis of ‘difference’ and gender as nature-given and/or biological, to the analysis of gender from a perspective of greater complexity. The intent is to challenge underlying constructions of

9

femininities and masculinities and developmental discourses in early childhood education to more fully understand gender as a continuum. Finally, studies about ethnicity and outdoor play and learning in early childhood and early childhood education are rare. However, in the field of outdoor studies and cultural diversity, research about different minorities and individuals, mostly adults, and their access to different places and spaces and how they experience the natural landscape have been conducted (Roberts, 2016). A further concern is the representation and involvement of women and minority groups in environmental organizations, including those who mentor and teach children in outdoor play and learning settings. A report by Taylor (2014) in the USA, for example, surveyed 300 independent groups and government agencies contributing to the environmental movement and discovered that few women or minority groups were involved in these organizations. The report found that more than 70% of the presidents and board chairs of environmental groups were male (90% male for those with annual budgets over $1m – none of which had a minority president). Overall, minority ethnic groups occupied fewer than 12% of leadership positions and few of the organizations actively collaborate with minority groups or low-income groups. According to Goldenberg (2014), the findings of the report suggest an ‘overwhelmingly white “Green Insiders” Club and the dismal findings amplify long-standing complaints from women and minorities that the groups which have taken it on themselves to lead transformational change are resistant to change themselves, and are dominated by white males’. Learning more about children’s outdoor experiences across diverse racial and ethnic groups can provide clearer understanding of trajectories in later life, whether it be environmental knowledge, appreciation of natural environments, outdoor recreational participation or career choices.

10

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK The book is specifically structured in six discrete, but complementary parts as follows: I Theoretical frameworks and conceptual approaches for understanding outdoor play and learning II Critical reflections on policy and regulation in outdoor play and learning III Children’s engagement with nature, sustainability and children’s geographies IV Diverse contexts and inclusion in children’s outdoor play environments V Methods for researching outdoor play and learning VI Links between research and practice

Part I – Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Approaches This opening section is edited by Shirley Wyver and aims to provide a conceptual and theoretical underpinning for the Handbook to inform the consideration of outdoor play and learning throughout. In Chapter 1, ‘Theoretical Framework of Developmental Theories of Play’, Olivia Saracho critically discusses how theories of play can provide an understanding of children’s play behaviour. She explores two different categorizations of play to show how classical theories explain the rationale for play, whereas modern theories justify the practices of play. Saracho discusses how modern theories of play are based on theoretical concepts and results from empirical studies that offer an understanding of the children’s play, relating particularly to psychoanalytic and cognitive theories of play. Chapter 2, written by Jane Waters, provides an insight into the concept of ‘affordance’ and how it has been adopted within the international fields of outdoor play and adventure learning. Her chapter, entitled ‘Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play’, reviews the origins and development of the concept and undertakes a consideration of its usefulness within the field and how it may be developed in the future. Doris Bergen is the author

of Chapter 3, entitled ‘Technology and Outdoor Play: Concerns and Opportunities’. Here she discusses both theoretical and research-based aspects regarding how technology-augmented play materials may affect children’s outdoor play. This chapter reviews the theory and research related to these issues and suggestions are made for ensuring that outdoor play continues to be part of every child’s experience. In Chapter 4, ‘Outdoor Play in Recess Time’, Robyn Holmes and Kristen Kohm focus on children’s outdoor play during school ‘recess’ (break) time. Recess time has traditionally been a time in school for free play, but has recently been perceived as free time during the school day that can be replaced with increased instruction. With a rapid loss of recess time in many countries, it is essential to understand the role it has played in children’s lives. Holmes and Kohm undertake a review of the recess debate to consider a range of factors that contribute to changing play patterns, and the chapter is framed with the position that informal recess play is critical to children’s development and academic success. In Chapter 5, ‘Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development’, Shirley Wyver begins by examining changes in perceptual-cognitive development that seem to coincide with recent reduced opportunities for outdoor play. This is followed by an overview of research on Executive Function and outdoor play with particular consideration given to physical activity, which is generally greater when play is outdoors and indoors. The argument is made for moving away from decontextualized models of cognition when examining outdoor play and giving consideration to situated cognition. Difficulties with extrapolating from animal models of play and cognition when making recommendations for practice are highlighted. Chapter 6, ‘Forest School for the Early Years In England’ by Sara Knight, carefully documents the influences leading to the rise in Forest Schools in the UK, starting from early Danish influences, through to governmental

Introduction

decisions and practitioner training. Six principles of Forest School are described as well as the associated benefits. It is apparent that part of the UK Forest School success comes from consideration of working within the local context rather than strictly adhering to the Danish approach.

Part II: Critical Reflections on Policy and Regulation The second section of the Handbook focuses directly on policy and regulation related specifically to outdoor play and learning. The section is edited by Ellen Sandseter and critically reviews current debate and regulation concerning safety and risk in outdoor environments and play spaces. In Chapter 7, ‘Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play’, Ellen Sandseter, Helen Little, David Ball, David Eager and Mariana Brussoni contrast arguments for the importance of stimulating and challenging outdoor play experiences for the health and development of children, with the relatively recent trend for the creation of injury-free or ‘safe’ environments. They argue that the ‘workplace model of zero tolerance to accidents and associated risk exposure’ is inappropriate in the context of children’s outdoor play. In their chapter the authors advocate a more balanced approach to play provision, which recognizes that risk exposure is not entirely bad and that children benefit from and require risk-taking opportunities. The chapter also shows how adopting this positive approach to risk-taking has implications at all levels of play provision, from policy formulation to play practice. Following this, Chapter 8, ‘The Evolution of Policy on Risk Management in Outdoor Play’ by Tim Gill, explores policy and thinking around the management of risk in outdoor play provision. Gill contends that central to this narrative is the emergence of risk–benefit assessment (RBA) as a suitable approach to the decision-making task. The chapter sets out the rationale and key features

11

of RBA, and concludes with a discussion of its influence and the challenges it faces. In Chapter 9, ‘Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children Mattered’, Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle and Mariana Brussoni summarize the changing attitudes and approaches to the outdoor play spaces designed for children in Canada. They contend that the conceptualization of Canadian children as vulnerable and needing protection became routinized during the 1990s and that this attitude is now reflected in childhood policies, parenting approaches and the outdoor play spaces designed for children. Their chapter reviews two recent Canadian initiatives that have aimed to improve outdoor play opportunities and play spaces created for children. Kwi-Ok Nah in Chapter 10, ‘The Rise of Outdoor Play and Education Issues in Preschools in South Korea’, discusses the perceived need for providing better opportunities for children’s outdoor play and learning in natural environments. In South Korea many families reside in dense urban areas that are compact and do not afford much space for children’s outdoor play, and in particular, they lack opportunities to play in nature. Nah discusses approaches towards rectifying this situation. In Chapter 11, by Pelusa Orellana and Maria Francisca Valenzuela, entitled ‘Outdoor Play in Latin American Early Childhood and Elementary Schools: A Review of the Literature’, the authors describe how national curriculum guidelines that promote play and learning in some Latin American countries are being implemented, with a particular focus on Chile. The final chapter in this section is by Susan Solomon, who writes provocatively from the perspective of an architectural historian interested in improving playground design. Chapter 12, entitled ‘How To Revitalize American Playgrounds’, draws attention to the generally poor condition of playgrounds in the United States and a number of ‘moral panics’ about safety fears and litigation that, it is argued, have impacted on their use by children. The chapter also considers possibilities for revitalizing the playgrounds.

12

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Part III: Children’s Engagement with Nature, Sustainability and Children’s Geographies This section of the Handbook is edited by Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér to focus in general on children’s geographies and more specifically on how children experience and benefit from nature and the subsequent debates around education for sustainability. The third section begins with Chapter 13, ‘Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: The Relationship Between Young Children’s Participation and Agency – Children and Nature’, written by Eva Ärlemalm-Hagsér and Anette Sandberg. The chapter provides an overview of contemporary understandings within early childhood education for sustainability (ECEfS) through a case study from the Swedish preschool system. Based on a critical theoretical approach, the study aims to scrutinize hidden structures and assumptions in relation to education for sustainability. The chapter concludes by suggesting that further research is needed about children’s relation to nature and children as participants and agents of change within cultures for sustainability. Sarah MacQuarrie and Clare Nugent in Chapter 14, ‘Considering Children’s Opportunities for Exploration of their Local Environment and Engagement with Nature’, focus on nature-based experiences offered to children within their education. The chapter reports a longitudinal multi-case study of three nature kindergartens located in Denmark, Finland and Scotland, as well as a UK perspective (Scotland and England), where teachers and practitioners are increasingly being encouraged to use outdoor spaces for learning. Chapter 15, by Olav Lysklett, extends the theme of nature-based education. This chapter, entitled ‘Nature Preschools in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Norway: Characteristics and Differences’, considers the pedagogy and organization of nature preschools in four different countries in Europe. The similarities and differences in the

approaches adopted in each country are discussed in relation to cultural influences and educational expectations and frameworks. In Chapter 16 Eva Änggård examines Swedish children’s play in two ‘I Ur och Skur’ (‘come rain or shine’, outdoors in all weather) schools. The chapter, ‘Places for Symbolic Play in Nature Environments’, centres analysis on the interplay between children’s play activities, the physical environment and the play themes children adopt in these environments. The chapter aims to contribute to knowledge of symbolic play in nature environments and is intended to inform practitioners wishing to facilitate children’s play in these outdoor environments. Antje  Luchs, the author of Chapter 17 ‘Assessing Free Play Behaviour in Urban Play Spaces’, reports on results of a study showing how children benefit from playing intensively in open spaces and in undefined outdoor areas with ‘loose parts’ (described by the author as ‘moveable components’), such as twigs, fir cones, stones, etc. Luchs argues that the implications of the results of her research suggest that the optimum play environments for children are areas, material and devices consisting of different structures and without any predetermined fixed function. In Chapter 18, ‘Nature Pedagogy  – An Exploration of the Storied Narratives that Illustrate its Application across Spaces Inside, Outside and Beyond’, Claire Warden explores reciprocal connections between humans and natural, wild spaces. Adopting a multi-modal approach, the author firstly expounds a two-dimensional graphic model for researching nature pedagogy (Diagram of Practice), with a specific focus on how adults who work with young children interpret being with nature. Secondly, the chapter discusses the use of narrative enquiry within a nature kindergarten in Scotland to show how participants were enabled to share their emotional sense of a relationship-based connection with the natural world. Chapter 19 follows, with Sue Elliott discussing ‘An Australian Perspective: Seeking

Introduction

Sustainability in Early Childhood Outdoor Play Spaces’. Writing through a social constructivist lens, the author explores understandings of sustainability, education for sustainability (EfS) and outdoor play spaces. In addition, Elliott draws on the critical theory of Freire to develop a frame for interrogating assumptions and misconceptions about educator roles and children’s learning in this arena. The chapter aim is to strengthen the early childhood educator’s role in early childhood EfS and provide an Australian contribution to the global sustainability agenda.

Part IV: Diverse Contexts and Inclusion in Children’s Outdoor Play Environments This section of the Handbook is edited by Libby Lee-Hammond and comprises of chapters that consider a range of aspects relating to diversity and inclusion, including some written by Indigenous researchers. Currently, one of the major gaps in research on outdoor play and learning is an understanding of the interactions of children and young people in nature at the spiritual level. Libby Lee-Hammond in Chapter 20, ‘Belonging in Nature: Spirituality, Indigenous Cultures and Biophilia’, draws from a range of disciplines to offer a philosophical discussion and review of various perspectives of the natural world and how these relate to spirituality, wellbeing, quality of life and the work of educators. In the chapter Lee-Hammond investigates the historical, theoretical and experiential dimensions of human connection with nature as well as providing an overview of the literature supporting the engagement of children and young people in natural environments. Ylva Jannok Nutti continues this theme in Chapter 21, ‘Along Paths of Movement: Sámi Children and Early Childhood Student Teachers as Wayfarers’. The chapter discusses Sámi livelihood experiences and child-rearing practices and describes a case study conducted

13

within the Sámi early childhood teacher education programme. The chapter makes reference to theories of wayfaring and Sámi livelihood and traditional child-rearing experiences to facilitate insights into children’s experience of place and their movements in the outdoor environment. Chapter 25 by Mary Caroline Rowan, ‘Relating with Land/Engaging with Elders: Accessing Indigenous Knowledges in Early Childhood Education Through Outdoor Encounters’, discusses a research project that took place in the Canadian Arctic. In the chapter, the author explores ways in which the sharing of Indigenous knowledges benefits young children and their educators through helping them to develop ‘a deep sense of meaningfulness that comes from connection to local histories, ecologies, contexts’. In addition, Rowan shows how thinking with land, water and ice provides access to Inuit worldviews, which she argues offer an alternative to ongoing assimilationist educational practices perpetuated through Euro-Western educational systems, which are failing to nurture academic success amongst Inuit in the Inuit homeland. Feyza Tantekin Erden and the late Zişan Güner Alpaslan in Chapter 22, ‘Gender Issues in Outdoor Play’, explore the significance of gender issues in outdoor play and learning through a critical review of theories and relevant research. Feminist poststructuralist theory underpins the chapter, which is particularly focused on gender issues and outdoor play in early childhood education in Turkey. The authors discuss the strengths and weaknesses of relevant studies and point to future directions for research in this field. In Chapter 26, ‘Men and Women in Outdoor Play – The Gender Perspective’, Bernhard Koch and Kari Emilsen continue the theme by presenting an overview of a range of studies, perspectives and understandings regarding outdoor play and gender. In particular, they discuss the role of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) institutions as gendered spaces. The aim of the chapter is to

14

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

investigate the connection between the number of men working in ECEC and the incidence of outdoor play. In addition, the authors explore whether outdoor activities attract more men as ECEC workers and reflect upon whether outdoor preschools are an arena for recruiting men to the ECEC profession. In Chapter 23, ‘Outdoor Play and Learning in the Landscape of Children’s Rights’, Theresa Casey discusses the intersections between children’s rights, inclusion and outdoor play and learning. The chapter examines concepts of accessible and inclusive environments and Universal Design, and draws on international examples to illustrate the practical dimensions of the implementation of children’s play rights and inclusion. Further, Chapter 24, ‘Multilingual Development and Outdoor Play’, by Georgianna Duarte and Greta Freeman, considers multilingual development and outdoor play. The chapter incorporates descriptions and explanations of the benefits of blending both multilingual development and outdoor play. In addition, the authors discuss how young children may hear or use two or more languages in their outdoor play, and how children may learn two languages sequentially or simultaneously during their play interactions.

Part V: Methodologies for Researching Outdoor Play and Learning This section is edited by Tim Waller and the chapters illustrate research projects using a number of different methods to investigate children’s experiences in outdoor environments. Firstly, Angeliki Bitou and Tim Waller in Chapter 27, ‘Participatory Research with Very Young Children’, provide an example of participatory research with young children aged three years and under in outdoor environments. The authors contend that outdoor environments are generally conducive to participatory research because they are spaces where children feel confident and

often have the opportunity to exert greater agency. The chapter makes reference to data from a recent research project in preschools in England and Greece and continues a discussion from previously published work about research with young children. Through a critical interrogation of the concepts of agency, ‘voice’ and silence, the authors contest the nature of the ownership of research involving children and young people. Chapter 28 by Philip Waters, ‘Developing the Pedagogic Method Narrative Journey’, discusses a pedagogic method called Narrative Journey. The author describes this approach as ‘a playful form of praxis that uses collaborative story-making to engage children’s interest in the natural world’. Here Narrative Journey is presented within the context of a mixed-method research project exploring children’s physical health and wellbeing at a nursery/primary school (children aged 3–11 years) in Cornwall, UK. The author concludes that research of this nature adds weight to the growing field of practice-led research and provides an alternative, eclectic methodology for researching outdoor pedagogies and recreational pursuits. In Chapter 29, ‘Take Two: Using Video as an Analysis Tool for Outdoor Play’, Natalie Canning explores the use of video as a non-participant observational tool for outdoor play. The chapter considers how video can play an important role in qualitative research, especially in capturing sequences of children’s play and the different ways in which footage can be utilized to stimulate debate around children’s play behaviours and preferences. In this chapter, a small-scale qualitative study using video as a central analysis tool is outlined and used to support continuing professional development (CPD) sessions for a larger staff group to explore the value of outdoor play for young children. In Chapter 30, ‘The Importance of Randomized Controlled Trials as an Evidence Base’, Shirley Wyver, Lina Engelen, Geraldine Naughton and Anita Bundy discuss how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can elevate the evidence base in

Introduction

outdoor play research. Consideration is given to the quality of RCT evidence both for improving understanding of outdoor play and learning as well as providing a strong case to government bodies and other agencies for the importance of outdoor play. The authors discuss the importance of analysing RCT findings in conjunction with qualitative and other non-RCT data. Libby Lee-Hammond and Yeshe Colliver describe a case study of children’s play and learning in a remote province of Solomon Islands and contrast this with first world contexts such as Australia. In Chapter 31, ‘Indigenous Methodologies in Education Research: Case Study of Children’s Play in Solomon Islands’, the authors aim to demonstrate the coalescence between Indigenous Methodologies and cultural-historical theory. They argue that this coalescence provides insight about outdoor play and learning in developed world contexts, as well as Solomon Islands. Thus the apparently disparate components of the case study are described as interlocking and informing each other. Chapter 32, by Josefina Prieto, is entitled ‘“Naturalizar Educativamente”: The Chilean Quest for Introducing Outdoor Learning and Play in Early Childhood Education’. This chapter focuses on providing an overview and critique of Naturalizar, which is the first programme to introduce outdoor learning and play in Chile’s education system. Naturalizar involved a pilot action research programme for four and a half years in 36 public Early Childhood Educational Centres (ECEC) in urban parts of Santiago, Chile. This chapter provides the first opportunity to disseminate the findings of the research. In Chapter 33, ‘Indigenizing Outdoor Play in New Zealand: A Conversation Analysis Approach’, Amanda Bateman, Margie Hohepa and Tim Bennett report on how a group of four-year-old children in New Zealand are encouraged to play in the natural bush environment in ways that are respectful to their cultural heritage by their early childhood teachers. Taking an ethnomethodological approach, the authors show how conversation

15

analysis reveals the outdoor play experience as co-produced through turns of talk and embodied action by the participants. The chapter also makes connections to the New Zealand early childhood curriculum, Te Wh¯ariki.

Part VI: Links between Research and Practice The final section of the Handbook, edited by Kristi Lekies, includes a range of chapters that make explicit links between research in outdoor contexts and practice in education and play provision. The section opens with Kristi Lekies, Thomas Beery and Jed Brensinger’s consideration of children’s collecting behaviour. Chapter 34, ‘Investigating Children’s Collecting Behavior Outdoors’, takes a developmental perspective to discuss the limited research on childhood collecting from nature and draws upon a range of disciplines to better understand these behaviours. Findings are discussed that indicate widespread collecting behaviour in early to middle childhood, gender differences in items collected, sensory appeal of items, use of items in play, distinct memories of collecting sites and associations with feelings of nature connectedness and biodiversity knowledge. Possible explanations for the appeal of these items also are included. The chapter links research with practice by including suggested areas for future study and implications for teachers, planners and others who work with children. In the following two chapters, readers are able to compare two contrasting views of the benefits of fixed play equipment and natural spaces in outdoor play. In Chapter 35, ‘Enhancing the Outdoor Learning Spaces for Pre-primary Classes in Western Ethiopia’, Valerie Huggins reports on a participatory enquiry that involved teachers from a range of settings and teacher educators. The chapter takes a postcolonial perspective in critiquing the taken-for-granted concepts of ‘effective Early Years practice’ and considers them afresh in an Ethiopian context. The

16

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

implication for practice is that outdoor learning provision in sub-Saharan ECEC settings, as well as in many other traditional, agricultural and non-industrialized societies, needs to reflect and respond to the learning needs and interests of the children, their parents and their community, giving due recognition to their considerable access to natural environments outside of the setting. Chapter 36, ‘Outdoor Play and Learning in Preschools in South Africa’, by Judy van Heerden and Marie Botha, explores student teachers’ and preschool teachers’ views, experiences and practices of outdoor play and learning in diverse preschools in South Africa. Their study used an explanatory instrumental case study design to generate mixed-method data using surveys, interviews and student teachers’ observations and practices. The chapter discusses findings from the study and recommends that early childhood policy documents should include the pedagogy of outdoor play to emphasize the potential of outdoor play, as well as guidelines for the provision of protection in safe and healthy outdoor environments. Kristín Norðdahl, Jóhanna Einarsdóttir and Gunnhildur Óskarsdóttir, in Chapter 37, ‘Early Childhood Teachers’ (Pre- and Compulsory School Teachers) Use of the Outdoor Environment in Children’s Learning about Living Beings’, discuss how the outdoor environment can be used to support children’s learning about living beings. The chapter reports on an action research project and how teachers’ ideas and practices changed during their participation in the project. The findings illustrate how the teachers used the outdoor environment to further children’s experiences of living beings and how these experiences offered many opportunities to discuss the ideas and concepts involved, and also that using creative activities outdoors was useful for teaching and learning science. Chapter 38, ‘Storied Landscapes: Children’s Experiences and the “Sense” of Place’ by Kari-Anne Jørgensen, aims to demonstrate how going into landscapes with children in early childhood institutions

teaches how intimately their stories connect to the features of the landscape. The author contends that these narratives elucidate values connected to children’s outdoor experiences and contribute to the development of pedagogical ideas about outdoor play and learning. Additionally, in this final section of the Handbook, Merete Lund Fasting in Chapter 39, ‘The Magic of Outdoor Play: A Phenomenological Hermeneutic Approach’, describes the methodological approach and results of a study following 10-year-old children in Norway during self-directed play in school and leisure time. A novel aspect of the research approach described in this chapter is the cycling tours of children’s favourite places conducted with the children and recorded by the author to describe, interpret and seek to understand their self-directed outdoor play. The implications of the study are that children generally prefer exciting and dynamic natural outdoor play spaces that they can find, use in different ways, and reconstruct for their own purposes. Finally, Chapter 40 by Sachiko Kitano, ‘The Benefits of Children’s Outdoor Free Play Activities: Examining Physical Activity in Japan’, presents an overview of current challenges in Japan relating to the problem of the decreasing motor ability of young children. The author considers both the policy of the Japanese government and practice in preschool settings aimed to overcome these problems. The chapter also discusses the Japanese tradition of free-playbased early childhood, and data on children’s questioning and learning during free play experiences. This is followed by recommendations on maintaining and enhancing the child-centred and child-initiated free play outdoor activities in Japanese early childhood education.

CONCLUSION The 40 chapters included in this volume are not intended as a comprehensive coverage of

Introduction

outdoor play and learning. Together these chapters demonstrate the depth and breadth of research areas and methods. This volume clearly shows that as a collective, outdoor play researchers work beyond disciplinary boundaries and often in difficult contexts in an attempt to tackle core questions relating to outdoor play and learning. The range of discipline areas of the authors is diverse, but citation takes disciplinarity further and includes areas ranging from anthropology, architecture and optometry. Importantly, all discipline and practice areas involving work with children benefit from an understanding of outdoor play. Further, as demonstrated in Chapters 6 and 13, areas that are not immediately obvious, such as global warming, are impacted by outdoor play environments. Despite the wealth of evidence for the importance of outdoor play, there is still a long way to go. For us as editors of this volume, a demonstration that this work has been effective will be if, when land is proposed for redevelopment, such as to build a car park, the question asked will be, ‘How will this impact on children’s play?’

REFERENCES Alexander, S. A., Frohlich, K. L., & Fusco, C. (2014). Problematizing ‘play-for-health’ discourses through children’s photo-elicited narratives. Qualitative Health Research, 24(10), 1329–1341. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E. (2013a). ‘An interest in the best for the world’? Education for sustainability in the Swedish preschool. Doctoral thesis, Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences 335. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E. (2013b). Respect for nature – A prescription for developing environmental awareness in preschool. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(1), 25–44. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E., & Sandberg, A. (2013). Outdoor play in a Swedish preschool context. In S. Knight (Ed.), International Perspectives on Forest School: Natural Spaces to Play and Learn (pp. 41–52). London: Sage.

17

Askwith, R. (2014). Running Free: A Runner’s Journey Back to Nature. London: Yellow Jersey Press. Aspinall, P., Mavros, P., Coyne, R., & Roe, J. (2013). The urban brain: Analysing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. British Journal of Sports Medicine, doi:10.1136/ bjsports2012091877. Bae, B. (2010). Realizing children’s right to participation in early childhood settings: Some critical issues in a Norwegian context. Early Years, 30(3), 205–218. Beames, S., & Brown, M. (2014). Enough of Ronald and Mickey: Focusing on learning in outdoor education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(2), 118–131. Beresford, Q., Partington, G., & Gower, G. (Eds.) (2012). Reform and Resistance in Aboriginal Education. Perth: UWA Publishers. Bird, W. (2007). Natural Thinking: Report for The RSPB. Sandy, Bedfordshire: RSPB. Blaise, M. (2005). Playing it Straight: Uncovering Gender Discourses in the Early Childhood Classroom. London: Routledge. Bonython, L. (2003). Aboriginal languages: Too little, too late. Second Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 3. Available at www. usq.edu.au/users/sonjb/sllt/ (accessed 20 September 2012). Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press. Bragg, R. (2013). Measuring Connection to Nature in Children Aged 8–12: A Robust Methodology for the RSPB. Colchester: University of Essex. Brooker, E., Blaise, M., & Edwards, S. (Eds.) (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Play and Learning in Early Childhood. London: Sage. Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., Chabot, G., Fuselli, P., Herrington, S., Janssen, I., Pickett, W., Power, M., Stanger, N., Sampson, M., & Tremblay, M. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454. Burriss, K., & Burriss, L. (2011) Outdoor play and learning: Policy and practice. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 6(8), 1–12.

18

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A metaanalysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976. Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 369–383. Chawla, L., & Flanders Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437–452. Children and Nature Network. www.childrenandnature.org. Davis, J. M. (2010). What is early childhood education for sustainability? In J. M. Davis (Ed.), Young Children and the Environment: Early Education for Sustainability (pp. 21– 42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowdell, K., Gray, T., & Malone, K. (2011). Nature and its influence on children’s outdoor play. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(2), 24–35. Einarsdóttir, J., & Wagner, J. T. (Eds.) (2006). Nordic Childhoods and Early Education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Elliott, S., & Chancellor, B. (2014). From Forest Preschool to Bush Kinder: An inspirational approach to preschool provision in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 45–53. Ernst, J., & Tornabene, L. (2012). Preservice early childhood educators’ perceptions of outdoor settings as learning environments. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 643–664. Fägerstam, E. (2012). Children and young people’s experience of the natural world: Teachers’ perceptions and observations. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 28(1), 1–16. Furedi, F. (2002). Culture of Fear: Risk Taking and the Morality of Low Expectations. London: Continuum. Gill, T. (2012). No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk Averse Society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Gill, T. (2014). The Play Return: A Review of the Wider Impact of Play Initiatives. London: Children’s Play Policy Forum.

Goldenberg, S. (2014). Green groups too white and too male compared to other sectorsreport. The Guardian, 30 July 2014. Available at www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/ jul/30/green-groups-too-white-too-maleother-sectors-report (accessed 3 September 2014). Grieshaber, S. (2016). Policy in early childhood education in the Asia Pacific Region. AsiaPacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(2), 7–28. Gupta, A. (2013). Play – early childhood pedagogies and policies in a globalizing Asia. In O. F. Lillemyr, S. Dockett, & B. Perry (Eds.), Varied Perspectives on Play and Learning: Theory and Research on Early Years Education (pp. 213–230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Gurholt, K. P. (2014). Joy of nature, friluftsliv education and self: Combining narrative and cultural-ecological approaches to environmental sustainability. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 4(3), 233–246. Hendriks, J., & Hall, G. (2008). The natural mysticism of Indigenous Australian traditions. In K. Achayra et al. (Eds.), Fullness of Life (pp. 491–518). Mumbai: Somalya. Hill, A., & Brown, M. (2014). Intersections between place, sustainability and transformative outdoor experiences. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(3), 217–232. Ipsos MORI and Nairn, A. (2011). Children’s Well-Being in UK, Sweden and Spain: The Role of Inequality and Materialism. London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. Available at: www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/ publications/1441/Childrens-Wellbeing-in-UKSweden-and-Spain.aspx (accessed 4 May 2012). Jóhannesson, I. Á., Norðdahl, K., Óskarsdóttir, G., Pálsdóttir, A., & Pétursdóttir, B. (2011). Curriculum analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 375–391. Joye, Y., & De Block, A. (2011). ‘Nature and I are two’: A critical examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20(2), 189–215. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1995). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Kernan, M., & Devine, D. (2010). Being confined within? Constructions of the good childhood and outdoor play in early childhood education and care settings in Ireland. Children & Society, 24(5), 371–385. Kickett-Tucker, C. (2008). Koordoormitj culture, identity and self-esteem. ARACY Grid. Available at www.aracy.org.au/index. cfm?pageName=publications_ library&theme=A16D8A05-1EC9-79F9594530ECF1FF2620 (accessed 30 October 2012). Kings College, London (2011). Understanding the diverse benefits of learning in natural environments. Commissioned by Natural England. www.naturalengland.org.uk/ Images/KCL-LINE-benefits_tcm6-31078.pdf. Knight, S. (2009). Forest Schools and Outdoor Learning in the Early Years. London: Sage. Langton, M. (1996). What do we mean by wilderness? Wilderness and Terra Nullius in Australian art. The Sydney Papers, 8(1), 10–31. Larson, L. R., Green, G. T., & Cordell, H. K. (2011). Children’s time outdoors: Results and implications of the National Kids Survey. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 29(2), 1–20. Leather, M. (2013). ‘It’s good for their selfesteem’: The substance beneath the label. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(2), 158–179. Lee-Hammond, L., & Jackson-Barrett, E. (2013). Aboriginal children’s participation and engagement in Bush School. In S. Knight (Ed.), International Perspectives on Forest School: Natural Spaces to Play and Learn (pp. 131–145). London: Sage. Lindon, J. (2011). Too Safe for their Own Good? Helping Children Learn about Risk and Life Skills. London: National Early Years Network/NCB. Little, H., & Eager, D. (2010). Risk, challenge and safety: Implications for play quality and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4), 497–513. Little, H., Sandseter, E. B. H., & Wyver, S. (2012). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about children’s risky play in Australia and Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(4), 300–316.

19

Louv, R. (2006). Last Child in the Woods. Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. New York: Workman Publishing. McCurdy, L. E., Winterbottom, K. E., Mehta, S. S., & Roberts, J. R. (2010). Using nature and outdoor activity to improve children’s health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 40(5), 102–117. MacFarlane, R. (2015). Landmarks. Harmondsworth: Penguin. MacNaughton, G. (2006). Constructing gender in early-years education. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Education (pp. 7–17). London: Sage. MacQuarrie, S., Nugent, C., & Warden, C. (2015). Learning with nature and learning form others: Nature as setting and resource for early childhood education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(1), 1–23. Mawson, W. B. (2014). Experiencing the ‘wild woods’: The impact of pedagogy on children’s experience of a natural environment. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, doi:10.1080/1350293X. 2014.947833. Maynard, T. (2007). Encounters with Forest School and Foucault: A risky business? Education 3–13, 35(4): 379–391. Mitchell, R. (2013). Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Social Science & Medicine, 91, 130–134. Monbiot, G. (2013). A week in the countryside is worth three months in a classroom. The Guardian, 8 October 2013. Monbiot, G. (2015). Children are being airbrushed from our towns and cities. No wonder they stay indoors. The Guardian, 7 January 2015. Available at www.monbiot. com/2015/01/06/the-child-inside/ (accessed 8 January 2015). Moreton-Robinson, A. M. (2003). ‘I still call Australia home’: Indigenous belonging and place in a white postcolonising society. In S. Ahmed (Ed.), Uprootings/Regroundings: Questions of Home and Migration (pp. 23– 40). Oxford: Berg Publishing. Moss, P. (2013). Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the Relationship. London: Routledge.

20

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Moss, S. (2012). Natural Childhood. London: The National Trust. Naftali, O. (2010). Recovering childhood: Play, pedagogy and the rise of psychological knowledge in contemporary urban China. Modern China, 36(6), 589–616. Norðdahl, K., & Jóhannesson, I. A. (2015). Children’s outdoor environment in Icelandic educational policy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 1–23. Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434–440. Plumwood, V. (2003). Decolonizing relationships with nature. In W. M. Adams and M. Mulligan (Eds.), Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-Colonial Era (pp.51–78). London: Earthscan Publications. Rackham, O. (1986). The History of the Countryside. London: J. M. Dent. Richardson, M., Cormack, A., McRobert, L., & Underhill, R. (2016). 30 days wild: Development and evaluation of a large-scale nature engagement campaign to improve wellbeing. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0149777. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149777. Roberts, N. S. (2016). Race, ethnicity and outdoor studies: Trends, challenges and forward momentum. In B. Humberstone, H. Prince, & K. A. Henderson (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Outdoor Studies (pp. 341–350). London & New York: Routledge. Rose, D. (1996). Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission. Rousseau, J. J. (2003 [1762]). Emile: Or Treatise on Education (Trans. W. H. Payne). New York: Prometheus Books. Sandell, K., & Öhman, J. (2013). An educational tool for outdoor education and environmental concern. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 13(1), 36–55. Sandseter, E. (2007). Categorising risky play: How can we identify risk taking in children’s play? European Early Childhood Research, 15(2), 237–252. Sandseter, E. (2009). Children’s expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(2), 92–106.

Sandseter, E. (2012). Restrictive safety or unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC practitioners’ perceptions and practices concerning children’s risky play. Childcare in Practice, 18(1), 83–101. Shaw, B., Watson, B., Frauendienst, B., Redecker, A., Jones, T., & Hillman, M. (2013). Children’s Independent Mobility: A Comparative Study in England and Germany (1971– 2010). London: Policy Studies Institute. Spence, M. D. (1999). Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Park. New York: Oxford Press. Szczepanski, A., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2011). Lärares uppfattningar av lärande och undervisning utomhus [Teachers’ perspectives of learning and teaching outdoors]. Didaktisk Tidskrift, 20(2), 119–144. Taylor, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing the ‘nature’ of childhood. Childhood, 18, 420–433. Taylor, D. E. (2014). The state of diversity in environmental organizations: Mainstream NGOs, foundations and government agencies. Report, Green 2.0, 2014, 4. www. diversegreen.org/the-challenge/. The Wild Network (nd). Barriers. Available at www.thewildnetwork.com/barriers. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New York: Rutgers University Press. Tovey, H. (2007). Playing Outdoors. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Tovey, H. (2010). Playing on the edge: Perceptions of risk and danger in outdoor play. In P. Broadhead, J. Howard, & E. Woods (Eds.), Play and Learning in the Early Years: From Research to Practice (pp. 79–94). London: Sage. United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). New York: United Nations. Available at www. ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc. aspx (accessed 4 March 2013). UNCRC (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child) (2006). Implementing child rights in early childhood. General Comment No. 7 (2005)/Rev 1. Available at www2. ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm (accessed 28 October 2013). UNICEF Office of Research (2013). Child WellBeing in Rich Countries: A Comparative

Introduction

Overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. Waite, S., & Pratt, N. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on learning outside the classroom – relationships between learning and place. In S. Waite (Ed.), Learning Outside the Classroom: From Birth to Eleven (pp. 1–18). London: Sage. Waite, S., Passy, R., Gilchrist, M., Hunt, A., & Blackwell, I. (2016). Natural Connections Demonstration Project, 2012–2016: Final report. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 215. Waite, S., Rogers, S., & Evans, J. (2013). Freedom, flow and fairness: Exploring how children develop socially at school through outdoor play. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(3), 255–276. Waller, T. (2014). Modern childhoods. In T. Waller and G. Davis (Eds.), An Introduction to Early Childhood: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach (3rd ed.) (pp. 27–46). London: Sage. Waller, T., & Davis, G. (Eds.) (2014). An Introduction to Early Childhood: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Waller, T., Sandseter, E., Wyver, S., ÄrlemalmHagsér, E., and Maynard, T. (2010). The dynamics of early childhood spaces: Opportunities for outdoor play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4), 437–443. Waller, T., & Tovey, H. (2014). Outdoor play and learning. In T. Waller & G. Davis (Eds.), An Introduction to Early Childhood: A MultiDisciplinary Approach (pp. 146–165). London: Sage. Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., & Montarzino, A. (2008). The childhood factor: Adult visits to green places and the significance of

21

childhood experience. Environment and Behavior, 40(1), 111–143. Warden, C. (2015). Learning with Nature. London: Sage. Warren, K. (2016). Gender in outdoor studies. In B. Humberstone, H. Prince, & K. A. Henderson (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Outdoor Studies (pp. 360–368). London: Routledge. Waters, J., & Maynard, T. (2010). What’s so interesting about outside? A study of childinitiated interaction with teachers in the natural outdoor environment. European Early Childhood Research Journal, 18(4), 473–483. Wells, N., & Lekies, K. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1–24. Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilson, R. (1997). Environmental education: A sense of place. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(3), 191–194. Wolsko, C., & Lindberg, K. (2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 80–91. Wynne, S., & Gorman, R. (Eds.) (2015). Nature Pedagogy. Perth: Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia. Yeh, H. P., Stone, J. A., Churchill, S. M., Wheat, J. S., Brymer, E., & Davids, K. (2015). Physical, psychological and emotional benefits of green physical activity: An ecological dynamics perspective. Sports Medicine, 46(7), 947–953.

Part I

Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Approaches

1 Theoretical Framework of Developmental Theories of Play Olivia N. Saracho

Philosophers established theories of play to provide an understanding of the nature of children’s play behavior. They categorized them into classical and modern theories of play. Classical theories surfaced in the nineteenth century and continued throughout the twentieth century, whereas modern and cognitive theories emerged after 1920. Classical theories explain the rationale for play, whereas modern theories justify the developmentally appropriate practices of play. The modern theories of play are based on theoretical concepts and results from empirical studies that offer an understanding of the children’s play, in particular the psychoanalytic and cognitive theories of play. Another important theory is the one on culture. Culture is ‘an ongoing pattern of life, characterizing a society at a particular stage in its development or at a given point in history’ (Coon & Mitterer, 2008, p. 5). In a pluralistic society, children need to increase their knowledge, become more culturally conscious, know the various cultural values

and be responsive to cultural differentiations (López & Mulnix, 2004). Children need to learn diverse systems of values to develop their cultural perspectives; therefore, cultural theory of play will be discussed. These theories are reviewed in the sections below.

CLASSICAL THEORIES The resemblance in the play of children and some animal species motivated several philosophers to develop their theories of play based on Charles Darwin’s (1859) publication The Origin of Species. They used Darwinian and other evolutionary theories to explain play instead of using observations. In the nineteenth century, theories of play surfaced to provide a rationale for the children’s play. They provide the reasons (e.g., early development, foundation, basis) and functions (e.g., intention, scheme, motive reason) for play. These theories are the (1) Surplus Energy,

26

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

(2) Recreational or Relaxation, (3) Practice or Pre-exercise and (4) Recapitulation theories.

The Surplus Energy Theory The surplus energy theory indicates that humans are naturally active. They accumulate the energy that they need for basic survival; they disperse any excess energy through pointless pleasure. For example, when children are sitting still for a long time, they develop surplus or extra energy. Children begin to fidget, become restless and display off-task behaviors, which suggest that children need to engage in a physical activity (such as jumping, running, skipping) to help them ‘let off steam’. The surplus energy theory is well known and was initially based on the work of the German philosopher J. C. Friedreich von Schiller (1759–1805) and later the work of English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903). They showed the similarity between human and nonhuman play. Friedreich Schiller (the eighteenth-century German poet, historian and philosopher) first proposed the surplus energy theory, basing it on the assumption that after meeting basic survival needs, children use play to release any organism of ‘excess energy’ (Schiller, 1794/1991). Schiller’s theory of play indicates that animals develop more energy than they need to survive and expend spare (surplus) energy through play. Both human and nonhuman animals need to get rid of surplus energy. The British philosopher Herbert Spenser (1820–1903) based the surplus energy theory of play on Darwin’s theory of evolution. For instance, higher species of animals play more than lower species of animals. Schiller believed that play related to ‘surplus energy’ whereas Spenser assumed that it was a ‘superfluous activity’. Neither of these philosophers considered play to be indispensable for human development. Instead, both assumed that it was a means that assisted individuals to balance their energy.

Recreational or Relaxation Theory Recreational or relaxation theory is the reverse of surplus energy theory (Lazarus, 1883). This theory indicates that play replenishes energy. When individuals have used up their energy, they need to search for ways to refresh and restore their physical and psychological energy. Recreational or relaxation theory refers to the individuals’ restoration of energy during play. German poet Moritz Lazarus (1883) viewed play as the opposite of work, when individuals restore the energy that they used during work. Play is a recreational endeavor (Lazarus, 1883) or a behavior pattern that occurs when individuals need to relax (Patrick, 1916).

Practice or Pre-exercise Theory Practice or pre-exercise theory was developed by Karl Groos (1898, 1901). During play, children practice the required behavior for later survival. This theory acknowledges many traditions and purposes for children’s play in adult games, rituals and competitions. Play stimulates children to replicate and implement adult roles that prepare them for adulthood and their future. For instance, when children act out their parents’ roles in dramatic play, they are practicing the roles that they will assume as adults in the future. Several constructivist theories that focus on children’s intellectual functioning support this theory (Piaget, 1962, 1985).

Recapitulation Theory G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), an American psychologist, used Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as a source for his recapitulation theory. The theory presumes that the individual’s development recreates the species’ development. It considers that activities that recreate historical events (e.g., hunting, throwing games, hide and seek, chasing) are

27

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

intrinsically gratifying. This theory declares that play is not an activity that needs future instinctual skills but one that replaces the children’s unwarranted instinctual skills. Based on the recapitulation theory, ‘Each child passes through a series of play stages corresponding to and recapitulating the cultural stages in the development of the race’ (Essays, UK, 2013, no page number). According to Hall (1906), human beings start at the embryo stage and move through evolutionary stages that are the equivalent of the development of the human species. Throughout such a sequence children act out developmental stages (such as animal, savage, tribal member) in their play, which provides children a catharsis that releases them from any primitive impulses that are unacceptable in the present society.

Comparison of Classical Theories The classical theories of play are divided into (1) surplus energy theory with recreational/ relaxation theory and (2) practice/pre-exercise theory with recapitulation theory. Table  1.1 provides a summary of these theories. Each pair of theories contradicts each other on how play utilizes energy or manages

instincts. The surplus energy and recreational/relaxation theories describe how play deals with energy. One theory diminishes excess energy, while the other refurbishes the lack of energy. Both the practice/pre-exercise and recapitulation theories explain play and their relationship to instincts. The practice/ pre-exercise theory makes children aware of adult life as they practice the roles in adulthood, whereas the recapitulation theory assists children to release their instincts from earlier stages. The classical theories are founded on philosophical principles rather than research outcomes. Some scholars (e.g., Ellis, 1973) assume that such theories are incredibly inadequate and lack the current theoretical knowledge of energy, instinct, evolution and development (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). Nevertheless, they offer a groundwork for the modern theories of play (Rubin, 1982).

MODERN THEORIES OF PLAY Modern theories of play offer an understanding of their critical function in the children’s development and rationalize the power of the

Table 1.1  Classical theories of play Theories

Theorists

Surplus energy

Friedreich Schiller (1759–1805) Eliminate excess energy left over Herbert Spenser (1820–1903) beyond what individuals need. Moritz Lazarus (1883) Restore sufficient energy to G. T. W. Patrick (1916) continue again G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924) An inherent manner of discontinuing primitive skills and drives that individuals have inherited from the epochs of civilization and become prepared for the endeavors of modern life Karl Groos (1896, 1901) An instinctive manner of preparing children for the endeavors of adult life.

Recreational or relaxation Recapitulation

Practice or pre-exercise

Source: Saracho, 2012, p. 33

Purpose for play

Areas of concentration Physical Physical Physical

Physical, intellectual

28

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

theoretical concepts, which are supported with empirical research. They consider play to be a scheme that promotes cognition or symbolization. The modern theories include psychoanalytic, arousal modulation, metacommunicative and cognitive theories (Mellou, 1994).

Psychoanalytic Theory Sigmund Freud and his advocates developed the psychoanalytic theory based on their clinical practice. Freud assumed that play performed a distinctive function in the children’s emotional development, because it assisted them to cope with negative emotions and replace them with more positive ones. When children play, they are able to establish a healthier emotional equilibrium. They handle circumstances that communicate negative feelings and traumas, while play presents a cathartic effect. Freud (1938) observed that children used play as a means to overcome their own concealed feelings. The children’s active or inactive participation managed their internalized thought system and their deliberate physical actions. Distress influences the children’s social transactions or interpersonal interactions. Play experiences assist children to figure out stressful circumstances and search for another meaning that integrates pleasurable feelings and circumvents bad ones. Play helps children to figure out situations, associate symbolic individual properties and objects in both the past and present, and communicate their feelings (Wehman & Abramson, 1976). Several theorists independently analyzed and modified Freud’s psychoanalytic theory based on the function of play in human development. They related play to wish fulfillment, anxiety and ego development (Takhvar, 1988). Erikson (1963 [1950]), one of Freud’s followers, adapted Freud’s stages of psychosexual development beginning at birth and continuing throughout the individual’s life. Erikson assumed that children play to imitate the past, present and future, and to find solutions to

problems they encounter at each developmental stage. Peller (1952), another of Freud’s supporters, believed that the children’s fundamental emotional feelings (such as love, admiration, fear, aggression) encouraged them to participate in play to prepare for adult life. Both Erikson and Peller thought that the structure of play influences the individual’s psychosocial or psychosexual progress. Psychoanalysts hypothesized that children employ fantasy play episodes to imitate adult roles and obtain a sense of achievement that assists them to cope with their real problems. Children role-play personal distressing experiences to subdue the pain when they are able to understand them during their play, which will help them deal with the situation and the affective components of positive life events (Murphy, 1956). For example, a sick child is promptly taken to a hospital. Such circumstances may be traumatic and cause several negative emotional feelings. The child’s pain and suffering from the illness and the separation from the family can cause an emotional trauma. After the child has recovered, the hospital experiences can be acted out. Children perform frightening events to be able to cope with them. In this way, play provides children with a means of managing their world, understanding it, controlling its problems. Some psychoanalysts use play therapy to help children cope with their problems.

Play Therapy Play therapy is a clinical treatment for children with emotional problems. It makes it easier for children to naturally communicate and role-play emotions of tension, fear and insecurity. Therapists provide children with toys, observe their play behavior and determine the children’s emotions. Their observations make them of aware of the children’s problems, which they are then able to help the children deal with. Play therapy helps children learn to control their emotions and become secure (Axline, 2002).

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

In 1928 Margaret Lowenfeld (1993 [1979]), a British pediatrician and child psychiatrist, initiated a Clinic for Nervous and Difficult Children in London. She became knowledgeable about the way children think, play and cope with pain and grief. She used her knowledge to develop her personal unique theories and methods. She created a projective play therapy technique (World Technique) for unhappy or disturbed children. Lowenfeld’s play therapy did not utilize language, which made it easy to implement with cross-cultural populations. The World Technique allowed children to convey their thoughts and emotions to set free any conflicts and anxieties that were the result of inconsistencies between their inner and outer realities. Lowenfeld’s technique allowed children to honestly share their mental and emotional experiences. She would record her observations and allow the theory to emerge from the children’s work (Turner, 2009). Lowenfeld’s therapeutic use of miniature figures in a tray of sand became well known. These were based on Herbert George Wells’ (1866–1946) Floor Games1 (Wells, 2006 [1911]), which explain feelings through miniature worlds. Wells and his children created worlds with various small toys and blocks that are used on the floor (Turner, 2004). Others soon began to use miniature worlds and scenes in the sand boxes in the playroom at their clinics (Lowenfeld, 1993 [1979]). Since Lowenfeld’s World Technique was similar to dramatic play, others (e.g., Isaacs, Erikson) became interested in this technique; but they have modified it based on their particular therapeutic or diagnostic purposes. Susan Isaacs (1885–1948) significantly contributed to both children’s education and their psychoanalysis. She also believed that children’s education should begin with their environment and introduced them to the natural world, which is a concept based on John Dewey. When Isaacs was in charge of the Malting House School (1924–1927), she observed and used her analyses to establish

29

the following principles of children’s inquiry into the natural world (Isaacs, 1930). • Children learn from physical contact with the world. Children’s testing and measuring of reality weans them from personal schemas. (p. 80) • Children’s knowledge increases through experiences of experiment, observation and discovery. For example, after burning bits of wool and cotton, a Malting House School child observed that wool does not burn so easily as cotton. (p. 51) • Children have strong, spontaneous interests in and raised questions about the things and events of the natural world. (pp. 80–81) • Children can reason, when their interests are engaged. Although young children cannot sustain verbal thinking, it does spring up and die down, like wave crests. (pp. 84–85) • Given the right environment and degree of response from influential adults, children will pursue interests. Sustained conversations between one child and one adult … occur … in the course of free practical activity in a varied setting, and in play with other children and with adults who share in the practical pursuits. (pp. 82–83) • Children’s thinking in everyday life … And on any day, [the children] would pass easily between the realms of pure fantasy and occasionally of magic, and those of practical insight and resource, and of verbal argument and reasoning. (p. 92) • Children can hypothesize and make inferences. Cognitive behavior was not to be thought of as a set of single-unit acts of relation-finding, but as a complex dynamic series of adaptive reactions and reflections. These crystallize out here and there into clear judgments or definite hypotheses or inferences, which, however, gain all their meaning from their place in the whole movement of the child’s mind in its attempt to grasp and organize its experience. (p. 52)

Isaacs observed the children’s development and their behavior when they were allowed to freely explore and test their ideas with (a) the physical world; (b) how things are created; (c) why objects break and burn; and (d) the properties of water, gas, electric light, rain, sunshine, mud and frost. Children can understand the behavior of objects and individuals when they engage in dramatic play (Isaacs, 1930), especially during fantasy and imaginative play (Graham, 2008).

30

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Comparison of Psychoanalytic Theories Developmentalists (e.g., Susan Isaacs, Erik Erikson, Margaret Lowenfeld) identified ways on how to assist children in solving their problems and encounter any challenges with confidence. They recorded, analyzed and compared observations, and surprisingly found an equivalent meaning. For example, Erikson (1940) confirms that, ‘to play it out is the most natural auto-therapeutic measure childhood affords. What ever other role play may have in the child’s development the child also uses it to make up for defeats, sufferings, and frustrations’ (p. 561). Based on her observations, Susan Isaacs (1930) wrote, ‘Play is not only the means by which the child comes to discover the world, it is supremely the activity which brings him psychic equilibrium in the early years. In his play activities the child externalizes and works out to some measure of harmony the different trends of his internal psychic life. In turn he gives external form and expression, now to the parent, now to the child within himself … And gradually he learns to relate his deepest and most primitive fantasies to the ordered world of real relations’ (p. 425). For repeated temporary neurotic episodes of childhood, Margaret Lowenfeld (1931) thought that symbolic play was critical; children are able to remove ‘some of the excess emotional energy which has become dammed up behind the neurosis’ (p. 226). When children play freely in a secure and accepted environment, they can satisfactory and healthfully deal with their most pressing problems (Hartley, Frank, & Goldenson, 1952).

Arousal Seeking/Modulation Theory In the arousal seeking/modulation theory, Berlyne (1969) describes the way the organism seeks for resources of arousal to obtain particular information. The children’s central

nervous system needs to keep arousal at the highest level. Being over-stimulated (e.g., looking at something weird) intensifies arousal to disturbingly high levels and leads children to participate in activities that will reduce stimulation (e.g., staring at something to become intimate with it). A lack of stimulation reduces the levels, which leads to boredom. Then the organism strives to search for more stimulation, which Berlyne refers to as ‘diverse exploration’. Trying to find an activity decreases the motivation for arousal. According to Ellis (1973), the arousalseeking theory of play is a stimulus-seeking activity that offers children opportunities to manipulate objects and actions in innovative and different ways. He believed that play would increase both the stimulation and arousal levels, and individuals continuously focus on sensory amendment. Sensory input persists in place when individuals concentrate for only a brief period of time. They seek for a set of corresponding sources of knowledge to augment simulation. However, an over-abundance of information leads them to disregard various sources of information that forestall stimulation. Individuals need to be provided with a plethora of novelty, uncertainty and complexity to improve their thinking in their environment. Children can reach their complete potential when they are reinforced with a developmentally appropriate amount of stimulation through play.

Metacommunicative Theory Metacommunicative theory influences the children’s interactions during their pretend play (Bateson, 1955). Children inform their peers that the play events are fictitious and are only imitations of life. Through play, children learn to simultaneously perform on two levels: (1) make-believe meaning of objects and actions and (2) reality of life (such as the actual identities of players and function of both objects and actions). In Bateson’s metacommunicative theory, the children’s scripts

31

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

and experiences depend on the situation and context of their make-believe play. Play is the metacommunicative framework to the authenticity of the transcription that initiates the individual’s cultural and personal resemblance, indicating that play and fantasy are critical to the children’s cognitive development. Bateson’s theory motivated researchers to study the relationship between play and cognition. The results show (1) a developmental age progression in the children’s narrative uniqueness that transpires when children fluctuate in their play (Wolf & Grollman, 1982); (2) the children’s social status shifts while they play (Schwartzman, 1978); and (3) the assumed relationship between text and context is comparable to the

relationship between communication and metacommunication (Takhvar, 1988). Table 1.2 summarizes both the modern and cognitive theories of play. The modern theories include psychoanalytic, arousal modulation and metacommunicative, discussed above; whereas the cognitive theories include theories by Jean Piaget, Lev S. Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, which are described in the following section.

COGNITIVE THEORIES OF PLAY Theorists and researchers show a relationship between play and cognitive development.

Table 1.2  Modern and cognitive theories of play Theories

Philosopher

Psychoanalytic

Sigmund Freud Children were helped to cope with repressed E. H. Erikson problems that took place at their previous L. E. Peller stages of development and were buried in their L. Murphy subconscious. Children use play as a device to V. M. Axline conquer their own hidden feelings related to Margaret Lowenfeld their apparent actions. Susan Isaacs M. J. Ellis Explains that play has the organism look D. E. Berlyne for sources of arousal to acquire specific information. It is a stimulus-seeking activity that offers children opportunities to manipulate objects and actions in new and rare ways. It expands both the stimulation and arousal levels. G. Bateson Claims that play is based on the children’s interactions when they participate in pretend play. In play, children learn to function at the same time on two levels: (1) pretend meaning of objects and actions and (2) reality of life (like real identities of players and real purpose of objects and actions). The children’s scripts and experiences depend on the situation and context of their make-believe play. Jean Piaget Play fosters the children’s cognitive development Lev S. Vygotsky and abstract thinking. In play children Jerome Bruner get information and meaning from their experiences. Their make-believe play helps them in their interpretations of the objects. Play is the children’s creation of make-believe incidents of real-life problems.

Arousal modulation

Meta communicative

Cognitive

Source: Saracho, 2012, p. 34

Purpose for play

Area of concentration Emotional, social

Physical, emotional

Social, intellectual

Intellectual, social

32

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Jean Piaget, Lev S. Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner are the theorists who attempted to explain this relationship. Their theories are discussed below.

Piagetian Theory According to Jean Piaget (1896–1980), children obtain knowledge through the dual processes of assimilation and accommodation. Through assimilation children obtain information from their experiences in the external reality. After that they combine (assimilate) this information into their mental structures. Through accommodation, children match up new information that varies from the information that they already know and adjust their mental structures. Usually, this discrepancy guides children to achieve a state of balance (equilibrium). In s­ pontaneous play, assimilation takes into account dominance over accommodation. Assimilation and accommodation depend on each other. Children assimilate an object into an existing mental schema and accommodate the object’s characteristics to a certain degree. For example, if a child sees a zebra for the first time and calls it a horse, the child has assimilated this information into his/her schema for a horse. After the child finally learns what the animal is, she/she has accommodated this information (Jones, no date). Thus, children accommodate their world into their existing mental structures. They use their present mental schemes and movement patterns to resolve their current problems when they take into account the differences in their world. In fact they are incapable of understanding reality, such as knowing how the event occurred. As a result, children need to accommodate the incoming information (Fein & Schwartz, 1982). In Piagetian theory, dramatic play is at the children’s developmental level. They gain knowledge and meaning from their dramatic play experiences (Saracho & Spodek, 1995). Piaget (1962) reveals that the children

experience three successive stages of play: (1) sensory-motor play, (2) symbolic play and (3) games with rules. Children proceed through these stages while their mental structures gradually adapt to their later stages. Piaget’s first stage of play (accommodation) is important, because children engage in recurring actions that concentrate on physical activity. In the second stage, children (approximately 18 months to 7 years of age) engage in pretend or symbolic play, which contributes to their literacy development. In symbolic play, objects are symbolized and designated real characteristics. For instance, a wooden box can be a symbol of a car or truck. Piaget’s last stage of play consists of games with rules, which surfaces throughout Piaget’s concrete operational stage when children are between the ages of 6 and 7 years. Games with rules (e.g., checkers, chess, card games) require a minimum of two children in order to play. When children begin playing games with rules, both sensorimotor and symbolic play diminishes in their lives. Piaget claims that changes in his stages of cognitive development build the basis for modifications in his stages of play. Vygotsky challenges Piaget’s theory that play promotes the individuals’ cognitive development.

Vygotskian Theory In 1924 the Russian psychologist Lev S. Vygotsky (1896–1934) introduced his theory of play, which concedes that play contributes to more than the children’s cognitive development. His research on play was first reported in a publication titled The Prehistory of Written Language (Vygotsky, 1935, 1978[1933], 1987 [1934]), where Vygotsky talks about the gestural-symbolic nature of the object substitutions that children use throughout pretend play. He states: The child’s own movements, his own gestures are what assign a symbolic function to the corresponding object, that communicate meaning to it. All symbolic representational activity is full of such

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

indicatory gestures; thus, a stick becomes a ridinghorse for the child, because it can be placed between the legs and it is possible to apply a gesture to it, which will indicate to the child, that a stick in this case designates a horse.

From this point of view children’s symbolic play can be understood as a very complex system of speech with the help of gestures, communicating and indicating the meaning of different playthings. It is only on the basis of these indicatory gestures that playthings gradually acquire their own meaning, just as drawing, at first supported by gesture becomes an independent sign. Only from this point of view is it possible for science to explain two facts, which up to this time still have not had a proper theoretical explanation. The first fact consists in this: that for the child anything can be anything in play. This can be explained thus: the object itself acquires a function and a symbolic meaning only thanks to the gesture, which endows it with this. From here follows the idea that meaning consists in the gesture and not in the object. That is why it is unimportant what an object is in any given case. The object is only a point of support for the corresponding gesture. The second fact consists in this: that it is only early in the play of 4- to 5-year-old children that the verbal conventional symbol appears. Children agree among themselves ‘this will be a house for us, this is a plate’ and so on; and at about this age extraordinarily rich verbal connections arise, indicating, explaining and communicating the meaning of each movement, object and action. The child not only gesticulates, but also converses, explaining his own play. Gesture and speech mutually intertwine and are united. (Vygotsky, 1935, pp. 77–78, F. Smolucha translation, cited in Smolucha & Smolucha, 1998, pp. 49–50) In his research Vygotsky reported the kind of object substitutions children replicate when they play, such as: The object itself performs a substitution function: a pencil substitutes for a nursemaid or a watch for a drugstore, but only the relevant gesture endows

33

them with meaning. However, under the influence of this gesture, older children begin to make one exceptionally important discovery–that objects can indicate the things they denote as well as substitute for them. For example, when we put down a book with a dark cover and say this will be a forest, a child will spontaneously add, ‘yes, it’s a forest because it’s black and dark.’ She thus isolates one of the features of the object, which, for her, is an indication of the fact that the book is supposed to be a forest … Thus, the object acquires a sign function with a developmental history of its own that is now independent of the child’s gesture. This is second-order symbolism, and because it develops in play, we see make-believe play as a major contributor to the development of written language–a system of second-order symbolism. (Vygotsky, 1935, pp. 79–80, F. Smolucha translation, cited in Smolucha & Smolucha, 1998, p. 50)

In Vygotsky’s 1933 publication titled Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child (1978 [1933]), he introduced the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) that develops during preschool children’s play (Vygotsky, 1967). He rationalizes that the zone of proximal development is ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (italics in the original text, translation from Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Symbolic or dramatic play promotes the children’s abstract thinking. Their makebelieve play facilitates their interpretations of the objects. At first the representation has to be the same as the objects, but afterwards stages of development becomes less critical. Vygotsky describes play as the children’s conception of make-believe events of reallife problems (Vygotsky, 1962). Vygotsky’s theory supplemented Piaget’s theory, demonstrating that the children’s play experiences motivate their cognitive development in the social context of culture where the cultural characteristics of cognitive development take place. The children’s cognitive development is enhanced when they play with peers.

34

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Bruner’s earlier work was a continuation of Lev Vygotsky’s work of the 1920s and 1930s. Bruner assumed that knowledge and learning were better acquired when children learned through personal discovery rather than only being ‘taught’.

Bruner’s Theory Originally, Jerome Bruner (1915–2016) theorized that children’s play advanced their problem-solving capabilities that are critical for their later life, which reveals that his early work is an expansion of the classical theory of play. Bruner (1972) assumed that when children play, they develop knowledge about and experience the environment, which can increase their flexibility. He believed that play offers children possibilities to test their ideas and learning experiences. In particular, Bruner (1972) considered that social play is an approach that reduces (a) the consequences of the children’s actions and (b) the risks in a situation. In social play, children’s behaviors communicate different messages; therefore, children acquire proper social communication skills. In play the process is more important than the outcomes. Children do not focus on goals when they play. They freely explore using novel combinations of behavior and are not concerned about achieving a goal. When children play, they test their novel behavioral combinations and afterwards use them to resolve actual life problems. Obviously, play encourages flexibility in problem solving and expands its effectiveness into human development and evolution (Burner, 1972). Burner (1972) declares that if the immaturity period is extended, children may acquire flexible problem-solving abilities during play (Johnson et al., 2005). Bruner considers that play benefits the children’s cognitive development and their preparation for their realistic social life in today’s society. When children play, they learn about society’s conventions and

customs and imitate them to become competent in their social abilities. Bruner supports this concept with his renowned Peek-a-Boo experiment (Bruner & Sherwood, 1976). The results of his experiment indicate that all children know the rules of turn-taking, which is the basis for this game (Curtis & O’Hagan, 2008). In comparison, Bruner thinks that all kinds of play differ in their impact on the children’s intellectual development. For instance, rough and tumble play is not as intellectually challenging as other more goal-oriented play activities like construction or drawing activities (Bruner, 1974). Later Bruner (1990, 1996) emphasized the meaning of play in the children’s progress in their narrative forms of thinking. Bruner supported the use of scaffolding to cultivate the children’s learning. He presumed that the children’s interests and scaffolding advance their learning; therefore, he acknowledged three modes of representation that children are able to use to process information. • Enactive mode is when children represent things through doing, which usually concentrates on the process instead of the product. • Iconic mode is when children document experiences using photographs, pictures, videotapes, DVDs and any kind of media. • Symbolic mode is what children use to represent something. Young children often use a code to communicate what they mean. Older children may write a word or a number, while younger children may use marks (scribbles, reverse letters) to communicate their meaning. Children use many different kinds of symbolic codes to express themselves, such as drawing, painting, making crafts, dancing, pretend play, language and numbers. (Saracho, 2012, p. 43)

Bruner maintains that children use an approach where they systematize their knowledge in a sequential and narrative way. A relative while earlier, children autonomously produce their own real or imagined stories where they compose make-believe situations that an adult play partner can shape into a short narrative (Kavanaugh & Engel,

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

1998). For example, consider the remarks of a father while playing with his 2½-year-old. During the course of their play, the child picked up a wooden spoon and stirred the contents of an empty bowl. As he did this, the father said, ‘Oh, you’re baking a cake, are you? Are you going to have a party? With cake? And balloons? That’ll be a great cake’ (Kavanaugh & Engel, 1998, p. 92). This situation demonstrates the way children’s pretend play has an implicit narrative pattern that an adult can clarify to a child. When adults recount the children’s pretend gestures, as in the above example, they assign structure and meaning to the children’s nonliteral actions, which highlight the narrative uniqueness that is implicit in the children’s actions. In addition, when children roleplay make-believe sequences, they are able to become competent with components of narrative structure, comparable to their first experience with the grammatical structure they use in their nonverbal play practices (Bruner, 1975). Such practice provides a straightforward relationship between play and the verbal and logical cognitive components. In socio-dramatic play, children will act out child-constructed narrative stories, which gives them the opportunities to learn and complete their narrative abilities (Johnson et al., 2005).

Comparison of Cognitive Theories Theorists observed that when children play, they use practice, imagination and re-­creation of situations, which develops the children’s cognitive abilities. Jerome Bruner believes that play is essential for the children’s intellectual development (Bruner, 1974). Bruner and Vygotsky support the socioconstructivist theory of play where children progress to higher levels of cognitive development as they scaffold through sensitive and intelligent adult interactions and social interactions with peers. In comparison, Piaget’s theory claims that in play children progress through

35

each developmental stage with or without adult involvement. His theory opposes Vygotsky’s socioconstructivist theory of play (Maynard & Thomas, 2009).

CULTURE AND PLAY In 1938, Johan Huizinga (1872–1945), the Dutch historian, cultural theorist and professor, wrote the book Homo Ludens (Man the Player). In the book, Huizinga (1950) refers to the term ‘Play Theory’ to describe the hypothetical context for play and its significance in culture and society. He claims that play is vital to the culture’s society and focuses on the aspects of culture instead of the play components in culture. The book was a springboard from his lecture titled ‘The Play Element of Culture’, which others relentlessly corrected to ‘in’ Culture, to which Huizinga fiercely objected. He stated: it was not my object to define the place of play among all other manifestations of culture, but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play. (Huizinga, 1950, Foreword, unnumbered page)

In the nineteenth century anthropologists became interested in the ‘science of man’ and initiated the theory of biological (Darwin) and social (Spencer) evolution. Within the theory of social evolution cultures exist as biological organisms that are similar to systems of growth and development ­ (Schwartzman, 1978). Potts (1996) declared, ‘Culture makes man makes culture’ (p. 182). Culture relies on changes in the individuals’ sociobiology, which is a field of scientific study (e.g., biological, social, ecological) that proposes that social behavior is the result of evolution and the social environment. Sociobiology is directly related to Darwinian anthropology, human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology. Therefore, the composition of the organism affects present human beings and the disposition of human

36

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

knowledge, especially the development of symbolic behavior (Roberts, 2001). If children are representatives in a transactional situation in their contexts, childhood can offer a possible support of imaginative origins for evolution that can be achieved and established. In learning about the origins and ancestors of the current human species, children are expected to attend to them or provide inactive storage knowledge segments. Children are the guardians of valuable cultural heritage (Opie & Opie, 1959). ‘Any consideration of the role of children in human evolution would be incomplete without emphasis on one of the most important aspects of childhood, indeed human behavior, at which children are the experts: play’ (Roberts, 2001, p. 106). Interpretation of play depends on the particular culture. In the West, play is described based on what it is not. Western theories of play require principles and question the significance of play in learning and cognition. Most theorists and researchers disregard an across-the-board theory of play that merges the immeasurable actual meanings of culture. Recognizing the cultural diversity of play environments is fundamental. The variety of societies (e.g., industrialized pluralistic, industrialized homogeneous, post-colonial, hunting-gathering) all over the world makes it difficult to embrace ‘culture’ (Roberts, 2001). Contemporary research on play is at a disadvantage because play has so many memorable meanings, and the body of research includes studies that use a number of theories and different research outcomes (Schwartzman, 1978). The contributions by Bruner (1974), Rogoff (1990), Vygotsky (1978) and others offer an understanding about the effect of the children’s sociocultural interactions on their development. It is premature to create a theory on culture and play. However, additional studies can provide support for this theory. Roopnarine, Lasker, Sacks and Stores (1998) recommend the following guidelines when investigating children’s play across cultures:

• Biosocial factors, both somatic and reproductive, influence parent–child participation. • Differences also exist in the psychology of the importance of play, whether it is in the peer group or parent–child system. • Finally, in preindustrial societies education occurs in formal and informal settings … Theories of play must account for the myriad of ways in which play is used for learning social and adaptive skills that are essential for successfully negotiating the demands of the individual’s sociocultural world. The socioecological contexts that represent the work–play mixture are antithetical to most Western frameworks regarding children’s play. (pp. 197–198)

Western countries focus on constructive and symbolic play in educational settings (Roopnarine et  al., 1998). In Taiwan, children’s play consists of slides, swings and transportation toys rather than conventional items such as kites or folding paper (Pan, 1994). Japanese children play video games, watch television and read comic books instead of playing with conventional Japanese games (Saracho & Shirakawa, 2004; Takeuchi, 1994). Various cultures have eliminated play spaces. The destruction of the rain forests in Africa and South America has separated families and children from the environments of the Aka, Efe and other hunting-gathering societies that have become dangerous. Play resources from the nearby regions considerably restrict the play activities, including survival societies. In the industrialized world, play spaces have been decreased in large cities (Pan, 1994) while stylish technological devices have replaced traditional games. Popular play materials have mainly stifled the children’s imaginative nature (Roopnarine et al., 1998). The ‘Western’ cultural ways of thinking have a worldwide impact on the circulation of well-defined manufactured toys. Billboards publicize Barbie Dolls and other play materials that are culturally relevant in the United States, South Asia, South America and the West Indies. Nonetheless, countries

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

select toys using the cultural values of the post-industrialized societies, because such societies challenge and frequently disregard native toys and play practices in their countries. They believe that the industrialized world has superior play objects. Presently, educators from abroad and the United States are considering the restoration of ethnic dignity (Roopnarine et al., 1998).

Summary Initially, theorists studied the play of humans or animals. Presently, they conduct research with children, adults and nonhuman animals that engage in play in the context of their development (Spodek & Saracho, 1987). Play was considered critical in the children’s lives. Now it has become important as an educative force. The major impact of children’s play and its effect on their lives motivated the development of several theories of play, which overlap and vary. Modern theories were used to understand play from a human development point of view that reflects on how play fosters the children’s cognitive development. Children’s play is a universal phenomenon in their development and is culturally founded and adapted. Play is biologically based and makes an evolutionary contribution to human development (Schwartzman, 1978). It is a major experience in the children’s everyday lives in all cultures. Children’s play at all times represents their social values and family ethnic practices. They engage in meaningful experiences in their own way, while simultaneously the sociocultural environment develops their play (Erickson, 1963). The children’s culture is reflected in their play, which facilitates their cultural learning and transmission (Schwartzman, 1978). During play children learn societal roles, norms and values. Numerous researchers suggest that children’s play varies across cultures and socioeconomic status (Roopnarine, et  al., 1998). It

37

is important that researchers understand the dynamics of cultural influence and child development on children’s play, especially in the contexts of the family’s ethnic culture, which are integrated in the children’s development and their play.

Note 1 Floor Games has a cheerful and entertaining discussion about the theory, purpose and methodology using models, miniatures and other props to play a variety of children’s games.

REFERENCES Axline, V. (2002). Play therapy. New York: Elsevier Science. Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychological Abstracts Research Report, 2, 39–51. Berlyne, D. E. (1969). Arousal, reward and learning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 159(3), 1059–1070. Bruner, J. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27(8), 687–708. Bruner, J. S. (1974). Child’s play. New Scientist, 62, 126. Bruner, J. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2, 1–19. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S., & Sherwood, V. (1976). Peek-aboo and the learning of rule structures. In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play: Its role in development and evolution (pp. 277–287). Bergenfield, NJ: Penguin. Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2008). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Curtis, A., & O’Hagan, M. (2008). Care and education in early childhood. New York: Routledge. Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray.

38

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Erikson, E. H. (1940). Studies in the interpretation of play. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 22, 557–671. Erikson, E. H. (1963 [1950]). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Essays, UK. (2013). Explaining the theories of play. Young People essay. Retrieved from www.ukessays.com/essays/young-people/ explaining-the-theories-of-play-young-­ people-essay.php?cref=1 Fein, G. G., & Schwartz, P. M. (1982). Developmental theories in early education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education (pp. 82–104). New York: Free Press. Freud, S. (1938). The basic writing of Sigmund Freud (Ed. A. A. Brill). New York: Modern Library. Graham, P. (2008). Susan Isaacs and the Malting House School. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 34(1), 5–22. Groos, K. (1898). The play of animals (Transl. Elizabeth L. Baldwin). New York: Appleton. Groos, K. (1901). The play of man. New York: Appleton. Hall G. S. (1906). Youth: Its education, regimen, and hygiene. New York: Appleton. Hartley, F. E., Frank, L. K., & Goldenson, R. M. (1952). Understanding children’s play. New York: Columbia University Press. Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Isaacs, S. (1930). Social development in young children. London: Routledge. Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development and early education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Jones, C. (n.d.). Examples of Piagetian assimilation and accommodation. Retrieved from pugetsound.edu/facultypages/cjones/piagetexamples.doc Kavanaugh, R. D., & Engel, S. (1998). The development of pretense and narrative in early childhood. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 80–99). New York: State University of New York Press.

Lazarus, M. (1883). Die reize des spiels [About the charms of the game]. Berlin: Fred. Dummlers Verlagsbuch-handlung. López, E. E., & Mulnix, M. (2004). Educating the next generation: Culture-centered teaching for school-aged children. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on language policy and literacy instruction in early childhood education (pp. 259–280). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Lowenfeld, M. (1931). A new approach to the problem of psychoneurosis in childhood. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 11, 194–227. Lowenfeld, M. (1993 [1979]). Understanding children’s sandplay: Lowenfeld’s World Technique. Great Britain: Antony Rowe Ltd. (Originally published as The World Technique, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1979.) Maynard, T., & Thomas, T. (2009). An introduction to early childhood studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mellou, E. (1994). Play theories: A contemporary view. Early Child Development and Care, 102, 91–100. Murphy, L. (1956). Methods for the study of personality in young children. New York: Basic Books. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1959). The lore and language of schoolchildren. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pan, W. H. L. (1994). Children’s play in Taiwan. In J. Roopnarine, J. Johnson, & F. Hooper (Eds.), Children’s play in diverse cultures (pp. 31–50). New York: SUNY Press. Patrick, G. T. W. (1916). The psychology of relaxation. Boston, MA: Houghton–Mifflin. Peller, L. E. (1952). Models of children’s play. Mental Hygiene, 36, 66–83. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Potts, R. (1996). Humanity’s descent: The consequences of ecological instability. New York: Avon. Roberts, W. P. (2001). Symbolic play and the evolution of culture: A comparative life history perspective. Theory in Context and Out, 3, 97–108.

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES OF PLAY

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in a social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Roopnarine, J. L., Lasker, J., Sacks, M., & Stores, M. (1998). The cultural contents of children’s play. In O. N. Saracho and B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 194–219). NY: SUNY Press. Rubin, K. H. (1982). Early play theories revisited: Contributions to contemporary research and theory. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The play of children: Current theory and research, Vol. 6 (pp. 4–14). Basle: Karger. Saracho, O. N. (2012). An integrated playbased curriculum for young children. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Saracho, O. N., & Shirakawa, Y. (2004). A comparison of the literacy development context of United States and Japanese families. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(4), 261–266. Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1995). Children’s play and early childhood education: Insights from history and theory. Journal of Education, 177(3), 129–148. Schiller, F. (1992 [1794]). On the aesthetic education of man, in a series of letters. (Ed. Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schwartzman, H. B. (1978). Transformations: The anthropology of play. New York: Plenum. Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1998). The social origins of mind: Post-Piagetian perspectives on pretend play in children. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 34–58). New York: State University of New York Press. Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (1987). The challenge of educational play. In D. Bergen (Ed.), Play as a medium for learning and development (pp. 11–28). Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

39

Takeuchi, M. (1994). Children’s play in Japan. In J. Roopnarine, J. Johnson, & F. Hooper (Eds.), Children’s play in diverse cultures (pp. 51– 72). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Takhvar, M. (1988). Play and theories of play: A review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care, 39, 221–244. Turner, B. (2004). H. G. Wells’ Floor Games: A father’s account of play and its legacy of healing. Cloverdale, CA: Temenos Press. Turner, B. A. (2009). The history and development of sandplay therapy. Middletown, PA: Sandplay Therapists of America. Retrieved from www.sandplay.org/history.htm. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1935). Predistoria peismennoy rechi [The prehistory of written language]. In The mental development of children during education (pp. 73–95). Moscow/Leningrad: Uchpedgiz. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 12, 62–76. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987 [1934]). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber, A. S. Carton (Eds.), & N. Minick (Trans.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 37–285). New York: Plenum. Wehman, P., & Abramson, M. (1976). Three theoretical approaches to play. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 30(9), 551–559. Wells, H. G. (2006 [1911]). Floor Games. Alexandria, VA: Skirmisher Publishing LLC. Wolf, D., & Grollman, S. H. (1982). Ways of playing: Individual differences in imaginative style. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The play of children: Current theory and research (Contributions to human development) (pp. 46–64). Basel: Karger.

2 Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play Jane Waters

INTRODUCTION The aim of this chapter is to provide an insight into the concept of ‘affordance’ and how it has been adopted within the field of outdoor play and learning internationally. The chapter should not be taken as a literature review of affordance, rather a review of the origins and development of the concept and consideration of its usefulness within the field, including how the notion of ‘affordance’ within outdoor play and learning may be developed in the future. The notion of affordance has its roots in the ecological branch of psychological theory and allows us to consider, at a theoretical level initially, the ‘space between’ the environment and a human agent. The notion has been adopted and adapted internationally by, for example, those considering children’s use of space to describe, primarily, the possibilities inherent within spaces that are offered to children for play and learning, especially in the early years, but also within the field of

outdoor ‘adventure’ learning. Further developments of the concept have come with recent studies into the social and cultural aspects of behaviour within a space, as well as observable action. Where this work is empirically based, observations of children’s action within spaces, and an analysis of the context of the action, has informed the description of the affordance of a space. However, there is a risk that the complexity inherent in the concept of the ‘space between’ can be lost within simplistic interpretations of the concept. When this occurs an important element of our understanding of children’s use of space is also lost, that is: the notion of human agency. The association between affordance and children’s agency requires us to think carefully about adopting the term and its theoretical basis for academic work. Such considerations are highly relevant in the international context of development of both early years provision, including the use of outdoor space, as well as educational provision more generally, and can be aligned with enactment of aspects of

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), particularly those related to agency, voice, education and play. By drawing together the origins of the theoretical development of the concept of affordance and the ways in which the notion has been applied to outdoor play and learning, most particularly in the early years, the chapter offers a particular view of the c­ oncept alongside the opportunities and issues inherent in its application to the broader field of outdoor play and learning. The main body of the chapter is considered in five parts: firstly the origins of affordance theory are considered in relation to the physical environment; this is followed by consideration of affordance in relation to children’s activity outside. Next the chapter considers briefly the notion of constraint and affordance. The concept of affordance is then considered in relation to sociocultural theory and some challenges in modelling affordance are addressed. Finally the philosophical ‘material turn’ (Dahlberg & Moss, 2010, p. xv) is considered alongside its application to affordance theory.

THE ORIGINS OF AFFORDANCE THEORY You could say that there are two very discrete and almost oppositional places where a sculpture belongs. One is physical: in a landscape or a room, and the other is in the imagination of the viewer, in his/her experience and memory. They are equally important and in many senses the work is there waiting – almost like a trap – for the viewer to come and fill it, or inhabit it. And then once ‘captured’ the art – or its arising – inhabits him or her. (Anthony Gormley, 2001 in Haywood, 2007)

Just as the sculptor Gormley describes the complex, philosophical space between sculpture and viewer, so it is possible to consider the space between the ‘environment’ and a ‘human agent’. Gibson’s (1977, 1979) theory of affordance provides a possible mechanism for such consideration.

41

The terms ‘environment’ and ‘agent’ have been used by psychologists to describe and consider discrete entities and are not easily adopted by those preferring a sociocultural stance; however, this chapter outlines how aspects of affordance theory, from the ecological branch of psychological theory, have been adopted by those considering children’s use of space. There is an inherent tension in this theoretical adoption, which is considered in some detail in this section: affordance theory relates to physical activity and pays minimal attention to the sociocultural mediation of action in any context. However, the appeal of affordance theory for those considering children’s use of space is persistent and a lack of theoretical attention to this tension has meant that academic literature may refer to affordance theory in a confusing and poorly articulated manner.

Gibson’s Theory of Affordance and the Physical Environment James Jerome Gibson (1904–1979) was an American psychologist who worked in the field of visual perception. Gibson’s (1977, 1979) theory of affordance was developed as an ecological approach to the consideration and understanding of visual perception. This theory was a significant move away from previous psychological conceptualizations of perception, based on information processing models, in which objects were considered to be perceived by a process of discrimination of their properties or qualities (colour, texture, size, shape, elasticity); Gibson’s theory suggested that ‘what we perceive when we look at objects are their affordances, not their qualities … what the object affords us is what we normally pay attention to’ (p. 134). The fact that a stone is a missile does not imply that it cannot be other things as well. It can be a paperweight, a bookend, a hammer, or a pendulum bob. It can be piled on other rocks to make a cairn or a stone wall. These affordances are all consistent with one another. The differences between them are not clear cut, and the arbitrary

42

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

names by which they are called do not count for perception. If you know what can be done with a graspable detached object, what it can be used for, you can call it whatever you please. The theory of affordances rescues us from the philosophical muddle of assuming fixed classes of objects, each defined by its common features then given a name … you do not have to classify and label things in order to perceive what they afford. (Gibson, 1979, p. 134)

Gibson introduced the word ‘affordance’: ‘I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment’ (Gibson, 1979, p. 127). It is this complementarity between animal and environment that Gibson was at pains to point out. The location of the affordance lies neither with the animal nor with the environment but between them, within the perception by the animal of its environment. The fact that affordances are perceived by the animal might suggest that they exist ‘external to the perceiver’ (p. 127), and yet it is only when perceived by the animal that they come into being for the animal. ‘The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill’ (p. 127). The same environment may offer different animals different affordances. Gibson gives the example of the affordance for support of an animal by different types of ground surface with different physical properties. This affordance needs to be considered in relation to the animal – and is unique to the animal. For example: a mosquito may land on the surface of a garden pond and be afforded support, but a cat would sink. It is therefore not possible to measure affordance ‘as we measure [physical properties] in physics’ (Gibson, 1979, p. 128). The complementarity between environment and animal is again emphasized in terms of objectivity and subjectivity: An important fact about the affordances of the  environment is that they are in a sense

­bjective, real, and physical, unlike values and o meanings, which are often supposed to be subjective, phenomenal, and mental. But, actually, an affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or it is both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective– objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer. (Gibson, 1979, p. 129)

The affordance is an invariant, however: the observer may or may not perceive or attend to the affordance, according to his needs, but the affordance, being invariant, is always there to be perceived. An affordance is not bestowed upon an object by a need of an observer and his act of perceiving it. The object offers what it does because it is what it is. (Gibson, 1979, p. 139)

Eleanor Gibson extended her husband’s work to consider the role of affordance in the exploratory drive of babies, arguing that babies ‘spend nearly all of their first year finding out a lot about the affordances of the world around them’ and that ‘learning about affordances entails exploratory activities’ (Gibson, 1988, p. 5). She also undertook empirical work related to locomotion of infants and young children and considered the role that affordance has to play in how children interact with, move within and come to master their surroundings (see Gibson, 1988; Gibson & Pick, 2000). However, it is largely J. J. Gibson’s work that has been adopted by those working in the field of outdoor play. The theory of affordances was initially conceptualized within a positivist understanding of the world; application of the theory within socioconstructivist understandings of the world can therefore raise tensions. Some of these tensions have been drawn out in discussions about the usefulness of the concept of affordance theory in design, human–computer interaction and learning and technology (Oliver, 2005). Tensions inherent in the concept, Oliver argues, have led to a divergence in understanding of the term and subsequent confusion in its application. For example, Oliver critiques

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

the concept’s usefulness to the design process, arguing that Gibson takes an ‘essentialist, positivist epistemology’ (p.  403), an ‘explicitly unsocial, non-­constructivist position’ (p. 409). Oliver suggests that either affordances are ‘most coherently interpreted as works of imagination or as positivistic properties of objects, albeit ones activated or perceived by people and animals’ (p. 403). If affordances are works of imagination – that is, lists of imagined uses – then this renders the term inappropriate for analytical purposes in the design process. If the positivist approach is adopted, then this flies in the face of current understandings of the social and cultural nature of knowledge and the socioconstructivist nature of learning. As an individual concerned with design, Oliver needs to consider the future interaction of agent and object (or animal and environment). It is possible that the knotted questions raised by Oliver are therefore timerelated. Designers need to know, in advance of design and subsequent use by unknown users, what the affordances of an object may be, and herein lies the tension. This exemplification of the tensions within the application of affordance theory are useful when we go on to consider outdoor play. However, when the term has been adopted by those working with children in their outdoor environments it has been used in relation to the present or past time frames – we can see what the environment is affording this group of children and, if we record their actions, we can recall (at some later date) what the environment afforded the children. It is important to emphasize that we cannot assume that we can know what an environment may afford a group of children in advance of their inter­action with it (Kyttä, 2002); to do so would be to fall into the tensions outlined above.

AFFORDANCE AND CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY The term ‘affordance’ has been adopted by researchers working in the field of children’s

43

action in the outdoor environment. The use of the term in this body of work appears to be largely consistent with Gibson’s original thesis, though the problems of epistemology, such as those identified by Oliver described above, are largely overlooked. What follows is a review of the work of Heft (1988), Fjørtoft (2001) and Kyttä (2002, 2004); this has particular significance because affordance theory is used to explain how children experience their environments and enables us to view environments through this lens of consideration, appreciating that children’s experience may be substantially different from the experiences of adults in the same space. Heft (1988) presents a ‘functional taxonomy’ of the environment – stating that this ‘offers a way of thinking about c­hildren’s environments that may be more psychologically meaningful than the standard formbased classification of environmental features’ (p. 29). This is particularly valuable as it offers a representation of how children, in particular, may perceive their environment: our immediate experience of the environment may entail an awareness of its functional possibilities and limitations … the presumed primacy of affordances in environmental experience may be especially apparent in children for whom intellectualisation of environmental experiences is likely to be less pervasive as compared to adults. (p. 31)

What Heft suggests then is that while an adult may enter a woodland space and mentally note what is there: for example, oak tree, shrub, puddle and mud patch, a child may enter the same space and mentally note what might be done: climbable, hiding space, splashable and squelchable. The central concept adopted by Heft is that of affordance. Heft describes affordances of the environment as the ‘functionally significant properties considered in relation to an individual’ 1988, p. 29). This statement does not allow for the location of affordances to be either within the environment or the individual but suggests that it lies relationally between the two, a position that is consistent with

44

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Gibson’s theory. However, the statement could also be interpreted as suggesting that an objective observer may be able to identify affordances in an environment for a particular individual. Similarly, the statement ‘when we wish to assess the functional possibilities of a particular place, we must have some individual, or type of individual, in mind’ (p.  30), suggests that affordances can be listed by an objective outsider who perceives the environment with regard for the characteristics of a type of user of that environment. Heft acknowledges that this is a limited view, however, and needs corroboration by empirical evidence: ‘while we can anticipate the likely affordances of a place … based on our knowledge of the setting and the person, the behaviour of the individual will corroborate empirically this functional description of the environment’ (p. 32). Fjørtoft (2001) asserts that ‘the central concept guiding children’s examination of their environment is that of affordance’ (p.  111). The term is used to describe ‘an awareness of the environments and their functional significance, or their functional meaning’ (p. 111). Fjørtoft (2001) describes the environment in which her studies took place in terms of the activities the various spaces afforded children. She describes a strong relationship between the structures of the landscape and the functions of play. The versatile, outdoor, natural play space therefore has multiple affordances for different types of play for young children (Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000; Fjørtoft, 2001). There is, therefore, a need to ensure we do not, as adults, decide that certain features afford certain activities in certain circumstances as this omits the perceptual nature of affordance – the space affords an activity if the activity is perceived as do-able in the space by the do-er. Fjørtoft and Sageie (2000) clearly state: ‘as adults we perceive the landscape as forms, whereas children will interpret the landscape and terrain as functions’ (p. 85). The description of an environment in terms of its function (in this case for play) using the concept of affordance then

must be based on children’s activity within the environment, rather than on an adult’s ideas about what children might do in a space. One cannot judge the affordances of an environment before or without such activity taking place without getting into epistemological knots. Taking, as Fjørtoft does, the view that we can list affordances in the present or past tense suggests that Heft’s (1988) assertion that the objective observer can list (in advance) possible affordances of the environment with a particular person (child) in mind may not be a valid theoretical position, particularly if one is trying to avoid positivist assumptions such as those outlined by Oliver above. However, the work of Kyttä can help resolve this issue. Kyttä (2002, 2004) takes the concept of affordances and extends it, providing a solution to the problem of the ‘objective observer’. Kyttä defines potential affordances – those that are specified relative to an individual and are available to be perceived, and actualised affordances – those that are revealed through the actions of the individual, or through self-report. It may be, then, that it is possible to consider potential affordances as an objective observer (i.e., those affordances that may be objectively perceived to be lying between the interface of a known environment and a known individual), defined in the future or perfect tenses, and to consider actualised affordances as those that reside at the interface – that can only be defined by the individual as she/he interacts with the environment, defined in the present or past tenses. This approach avoids the problem of duality between the phenomenal and physical (imagined and positivistic) as outlined by Oliver (2005), since the imagined is clearly stated as such in the term potential and the actual activities of the child in the environment are used to define the actualised. There is difference rather than duality. What is consistent with Gibson’s theory here is the requirement to consider the affordance as existing at the interface between animal (here, child) and environment.

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

Kyttä (2002) makes use of a taxonomy of environmental features adapted from Heft in her research; in this she includes a section for the social affordances of the environment, and this aspect is particularly pertinent for understanding children’s activity within a space. Kyttä (2002) suggests that the home yard was particularly important as a source of affordance for children – she suggests that ‘it is possible that the home yard acts as the first arena for finding affordances outdoors that can later extend to other environments’ (p. 121). This suggests that perception of affordances might be thought of as a learnt activity, based on, or at least influenced by, previous experience. This is not as Gibson intended in his theory, since this does not imply direct perception but mediated perception (Greeno, 1994). In terms of a sociocultural, socioconstructivist approach to the theory of affordances, this suggestion may translate into a view that children’s personal histories will mediate their perception (or ‘reading’) of the affordances of an environment. Kyttä (2002) also suggests that rural children’s perception of the affordances of their environment may be influenced by, for example, parental manipulation of the land. Kyttä (2004) uses her empirical work to suggest an ideal ‘child friendly’ environment, defining two central criteria of such an environment as: diversity of environmental resources, and access to play and exploration. She considered variation in these two criteria, operationalized by the number of ‘actualized, positive affordances’ (p. 179) for the former and by the degree of independent mobility for the latter, and constructed a model of four types of environment. Mobility was considered in terms of geographical range, mobility licence (parental rules about where children can go and under what conditions) and actual mobility (based on records of actual movements over a given time period). These environment-types were categorized as Bullerby – high independent mobility, high number of actualized affordances; Wasteland – high independent mobility, low

45

number of actualized affordances; Cell – low independent mobility, low number of actualized affordances; and Glasshouse – low independent mobility, high number of actualized affordances. Kyttä concluded that ‘the more mobility licenses the children have the more likely they actualize the affordances in the neighbourhood. Actualised affordances in turn motivate children to be mobile’ (p. 194). She argues that the Bullerby type of environment can be thought of as an ‘ideal’ (p. 194) context for children’s development: In the Bullerby context, children are able to interact effectively with their environment and utilize opportunities within the environment to perform independently at a level appropriate to their physical and cognitive abilities. (Kyttä, 2004, p. 194)

By attending to the concept of actualised affordances, Kyttä took the lived experience of the child in a space to enable her to describe an ‘ideal’ environment type, the ideal being based upon the number of affordances that the child could actualise within a specific space. Kyttä’s work here focused on the physical affordances of a space and includes, to an extent, the mediating social, cultural influences on actualisation of these affordances.

‘CONSTRAINTS’ AND AFFORDANCES Gibson’s theory considered positive and negative affordances: we can observe that some offerings of the environment are beneficial and some are injurious … All these benefits and injuries, these safeties and dangers, these positive and negative affordances are properties of things taken with reference to an observer. (Gibson, 1979, p. 137)

Greeno also discusses the term ‘constraint’ within his review of Gibson’s work and in relation to situation theory. It is argued here that the notion of a physical constraint within the theory of affordances is superfluous.

46

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

This  may be demonstrated by Kennewell’s (2001) consideration of affordance theory. Kennewell suggests: ‘a doorway affords entrance to a room; a closed door constrains entry’ (p. 106). However, it may be argued that a doorway only affords entry if it is suitably sized for the agent and a closed door does not offer such an affordance. The assertion that ‘a narrow doorway will not afford entry to the room for a wheelchair user, and a closed door will be too great a constraint for someone who does not know that the handle must be turned to open it’ (Kennewell, 2001, p. 106) does nothing to separate or identify an affordance from a constraint because ‘not affording’ entry is equivalent to ‘constraining’ entry and if someone does not know how to turn a door handle then the affordance for entry through a closed door does not exist. The view put forward here is that the use of the term ‘constraint’ in this way is problematic and the concept of affordance does not require it. The term constraint merely serves to increase complexity when used in relation to physical aspects of action in any space. However, the term constraint may be useful in considering the social and cultural aspects of a space that may mediate the agent’s perception and/or actualisation of the affordances of the space. This notion is explored further in the next section.

AFFORDANCE AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT It may be more useful, then, to reconsider Gibson’s ideas through the lenses of a twenty-first-century socioconstructivist view of learning and a sociocultural approach to understanding human behaviour. The term ‘constraint’, then, may be useful to encapsulate the mediated, contextual understandings through which behaviour is enacted. We might adopt the term ‘constraint’, for example, to denote the socioculturally definable

aspects of a particular time and place in relation to a specific individual that may mediate behaviour. Arguably, the term constraint is embedded, within the English language at least, as a negative term and the separation implied by defining constraints and affordances is therefore unhelpful and simplistic when attempting to remove duality in theorizing. It might be considered more helpful to describe the actualisation of physical affordances of a space as being potentially constrained by the sociocultural context in which action takes place. As Fjørtoft (2001) suggests, a rock may afford throwing; this will be contingent upon the size, weight and texture of the rock, and the size and strength of the thrower. However, arguably the throwability of the rock is also subject to aspects of the environment that are social and cultural in nature. In a nursery class in the UK, for example, there are likely to be rules that are set out by the adults for the children that they must not throw stones. Such rules are associated with and reflect the cultural understandings of the community and may be linked to concerns for safety and ‘appropriate’ behaviour. The same rules might not be applied, for example, for children attending a pre-school kindergarten in Norway, where ‘appropriate’ behaviour may be differently defined and safety concerns may be considered alongside respect for children’s physical and exploratory play with natural objects. The cultural context of the setting mediates the affordance for action. While a child in the UK may encounter a rock and may perceive the rock as throwable, the child’s need to adhere to the rules of the setting (or the close proximity of an authority figure) may prevent the action. In Kyttä’s terms the affordance for throwing may be perceived but not utilized. What is argued here, then, is that in order to fully understand the beneficial – or otherwise – features of a space, it is not only the physical affordances of the environment that we need to attend to, but also those that exist within the less tangible domain of rules and understandings

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

of behaviour, those that reside within the individual and the group, the explicit and the implicit cultural understandings of the broader environment that mediate how children perceive and make use of the spaces they inhabit. We might usefully term such notions as ‘sociocultural constraints’.

Modelling the Affordance of a Space Kyttä (2004) states that the concept of affordance has the potential to be extended to comprise ‘even [the] emotional, social, and cultural opportunities that the individual perceives in the environment … many individual characteristics, social and cultural rules and factors as well as practices regulate which affordances can be perceived, utilised or shaped’ (p. 181). She builds a picture of potential affordances as being made up of  three particular subsets: the field of promoted action (socially + culturally regulated), the field of constrained action (design features, inclusive or otherwise nature of the setting) and the field of free action (children’s

47

independent discovery of affordances of an environment); see Figure 2.1. Kyttä (2004) suggests that ‘in future research there is reason to emphasise analysis of the role of various socio-cultural f­actors that regulate the fields of promoted, free and constrained action’ (p. 196). This has been considered in a doctoral study in which the notion of affordance was central (Waters, 2011) and a socioculturally embedded model of affordance theory was proposed. The view taken in the thesis was that a child’s action – and interaction – in a space is shaped not only by their perception of the physical affordances of the space but also mediated by the sociocultural context, the ‘cultural conventions’ (Oliver, 2005, p. 407) of the space as well as by their previous experience.

INTERACTIONAL AFFORDANCE: A SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY OF AFFORDANCE The study explored the activity and interaction of children and their teachers, in three

Figure 2.1  A schema of the environment as potential affordances, the actualisation of which is regulated by the fields of promoted, free and constrained action (Kyttä, 2004, p. 182)

48

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

classes of 3–6-year-olds, over the course of one academic year, when they were inside and outside. The empirical data was used to inform the development of the concept of affordance from the socioconstructivist position of knowledge and understanding ­ being socially, historically and culturally mediated. The thesis suggested that a socioculturally located theory of affordance provides a better understanding of action – and indeed interaction – in different spaces. Use of the terms ‘action’ and ‘interaction’ to depict separate aspects of human behaviour becomes unhelpful in this consideration. Interaction between humans is a central feature of human action; it takes place within a space in which the humans are also interacting with the objects that are present (e.g., Bang, 2008; Lenz Taguchi, 2010). In the proposed model, then, the term interactional affordance is adopted since this represents interaction between children and adults and also encompasses the interaction of these agents with the spaces in which they act. Human physical action is then seen as the mediated interaction between humans and nonhuman elements of the environment (see also Lenz Taguchi, 2010). The model sought to represent the complexity of spaces in which interaction takes place, and yet allows particular mediating features to be identified. These mediating features earn their place in the model as a result of the empirical findings from the doctoral study.

It is argued, then, that the act of perceiving an affordance of an object (or a space for interaction) is always socioculturally mediated. Carr describes this as the power of social practices to ‘reframe’ (2000, p. 76) the perception of physical affordances. The act of perceiving an affordance is informed not only by the physical attributes of the object in relation to the person who perceives it but also by the sociocultural context of the perceiver, which includes their previous experience (virtual or otherwise) of similar objects, cultural norms and expectations. Any encounter also informs future encounters. This is simplified in Figure 2.2. Throughout this chapter, the notion of physical constraint has been rejected in favour of a concept of environments being variably affording for any particular agent. However, the term constraint may be used to describe the mediating role that the sociocultural context has on the actualisation of affordances in a space. For example, in a children’s playground in the UK the act of spitting is viewed as antisocial and likely to be reprimanded by an authority figure and viewed with disgust by adults and other children. This behaviour may, or may not, have been explicitly stated at some time, but ‘no spitting’ is not usually a rule that is explicitly reiterated on a regular basis. It is an implicit understanding of how to behave. In the proposed model, such implicit sociocultural ‘rules’ of a space are considered to constrain – mediate or guide – behaviour in that space.

Figure 2.2  Affordance is located between agent and environment and mediated by the sociocultural historical context in which both reside (Waters, 2011)

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

Aspects of the sociocultural context that may constrain action by children in educative settings may be placed into broad (and overlapping) categories including, for example: • institutional (e.g., setting/school) norms of behaviour; • pedagogical approach (including practitioner / teacher expectation and intended learning objectives); • parental expectation; • child expectation and previous experience; • the perceived purpose(s) of the encounter; • the explicit rules applied to behaviour (particularly when children are the agents); • and the presence of other agents (e.g., teacher as an authority figure, peers).

Drawing out the categories from within the notion of the ‘sociocultural context’ allows a deeper consideration and understanding of the affordances of an encounter and how they may be shaped by the sociocultural context. An example follows. A class of 6-year-olds’ first visit in the academic year to a local outdoor area took place in the autumn, on a dry day. The children were drawn to fruits, mushrooms and grasses growing in the hedgerows and by the side of the paths. The potential interactional affordances of such items for 6–7-year-old children might be, for example: to notice, pick, taste, roll, squash, throw, describe, wonder about these items and/or draw them to the attention of others. The empirical data in the study showed a more limited range of actualised interactions, however (Waters, 2011). When aspects of the sociocultural context are considered, the list of potential interactional affordances may be adjusted and children’s observed behaviour understood ­ more fully. Taken from the categories listed above, constraining contextual features may be identified for this context: • institutional norms of behaviour ° knowing that some berries are poisonous and should not be eaten;

49

° an awareness of environmental messages suggesting picking items from the undergrowth may be environmentally damaging; • adult expectation and the explicit rules applied to behaviour (particularly when children are the agents) ° compliance with the norms of behaviour (e.g., no picking or eating of wild produce) ° compliance with other shared rules of behaviour (e.g., no throwing of objects); • child expectation ° to seek approval from authority figures, peers; • the purpose(s) of the encounter and the presence of other agents (e.g., teacher as an authority figure, peers) ° noticing and/or sharing observations with the teacher may bring merit and positive attention to the child and this may impact upon how the child perceives the affordances offered by the presence of the autumnal ­produce.

Therefore, the list of potential affordances, when adapted to consider contextual constraining aspects, may then become: to notice, describe, wonder about or bring to attention. The possibility of picking, tasting, rolling, throwing and squashing is reduced due to the constraining impact of the particular socio­ cultural context. In another context the same children may be afforded very different opportunities by the presence of berries and mushrooms. A model for the interactional affordance of a space was proposed, building on the work of Kyttä (2004), detailed above. In the model, three fields of consideration are put forward. The first of these fields refers to the physical features of the space that provide for or limit interaction – what is present, who is present and the verbal competencies of those present, named the field of interactional limitation (see Table 2.1). The second field, the field of promoted interaction, refers to the understandings of participants about what kind of activity usually takes place in the space: the ‘rules of the space’. In an educative setting, the motivation of the practitioners/teachers sits within this field since the purposes to which teachers put

50

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Table 2.1  The broad categories that describe the fields of consideration for interactional affordance Field of interactional limitation

Field of promoted interaction

Field of free interaction

Field

Includes local physical aspects of space

Includes children’s agency and previous experience

Broad categories

What is available for interaction Who is available for interaction Ability and competence of agents in interaction

Includes sociocultural aspects/ local rules of engagement and may be considered constraining Culturally defined and socially approved interaction: – school/setting norms – norms of the educative space – parental expectations – child expectations – pedagogical approach including teacher expectations and learning objectives – rules about how to act/interact in the space

interaction in different spaces was found to be a significant mediating factor in what kinds of interaction were afforded to children by a space in the study. The final field, the field of free interaction, recognizes children’s agency and their choices in any situation. What is put forward, then, is a model for visualizing the interactional affordance of an educative space (see Figure 2.3) in which all fields are embedded within the wider sociocultural context of the space and the actualisation of potential interactional affordances is mediated by the three fields of consideration, which overlap with each other. In Figure 2.3, the interactional affordances of the space lie within the sociocultural context and this forms the outer shield of the model. The interactional affordance consists of both potential interaction and – as a subset of these – actualised interaction. The actualisation of interaction is influenced by the three fields of consideration: the field of interactional limitation, the field of promoted interaction and the field of free interaction. The model presented in Figure 2.3 allows the affordance for interaction to be viewed as nested within and mediated by the interrelated aspects of the broad sociocultural context, the physical context and the specific local context of the space and those within

Children’s initiations – with each other – with the teacher – with objects Children’s responses to others’ initiations/ actions Children’s choices – opting into and out of action/ interaction/engagement

it. In this way the model explicitly places children’s agency as part of the field of free action, yet acknowledges that such agency is enacted within, and acts upon, the sociocultural context both locally and more broadly. All the fields that mediate potential interaction are different in different spaces. In the doctoral study, this was especially evident when considering the opportunity for childinitiated interaction in the indoor and outdoor environments. In the study, the outdoor space supported actualisation of a wider range of potential interactional affordances than the indoor space. The outdoor environment in the study, then, offered a broad range of potential interactional affordances for child-initiated interaction and supported their actualisation. Indoors there was minimal actualisation of affordances for child-initiated interaction. The model allows us to realize that this does not necessarily mean there was little potential for child-initiated interaction indoors – it means that children did not generally take up the opportunities that may exist. In the study, the same outdoor environment afforded children in different classes very different degrees of activity. When the field of promoted interaction supported children’s expressions of enquiry and interest, the affordance for, and actualisation of, childinitiated interaction was high. In a similar

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

51

Figure 2.3  Conceptual model for consideration of interactional affordance1

environment in which the field of promoted interaction was restricted by, for example, a focus by adults on specific, predetermined content learning, the potential for child-­ initiated interaction may still have been high but the actualisation of these affordances was seen to be low (Waters, 2011). The model in Figure 2.3 may offer an opportunity for those considering children’s action within spaces to consider, in a systematic manner, the complexity of this endeavour. The model can be more simply represented, as in Figure 2.4.

THE MATERIAL TURN: MATERIAL AGENCY Lenz Taguchi (2010) proposes a new approach to the consideration of pedagogy in the early years: ‘intra-active pedagogy’ gives explicit attention to the intra-active relationship between all living organisms and the living environment: things and artefacts, spaces and places that we occupy and use in our daily practices. (p. 10)

She draws on the notion, from material feminists Barad (1998, 1999, 2007) and Alaimo and Hekman (2008), that

52

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Figure 2.4  A simplified model of the interactional affordance of a space (from Waters, 2013)

not only humans have agency – the possibility of intervening and acting upon others and the world. Rather, all matter can be understood as having agency in a relationship in which they mutually will change and alter in their on-going intra-actions. (p. 4)

Aligned with this notion is the idea that events are the responsibility of all matter and organisms that are present – human and nonhuman (Dahlberg & Moss, 2010). Material artefacts are therefore understood to be part of a ‘performative production of power and change in an intertwined relationship of intra-activity with other matter and humans’ (Lenz Taguchi, 2010, p. 4). Dahlberg and Moss describe this new approach to understanding action thus: how, for example, chairs and floors feel and sound matters in our intra-actions with them; from this perspective sitting in a specific space can be understood as a material-discursive phenomenon that emerges in the interaction that takes place inbetween a subject, who is inscribed in discursive

meanings, the body, and the chairs and the surfaces. And it is in this intra-action that our sense of being emerges – a sense that can either be empowering or disciplining. (2010, p. xiv)

Lenz Taguchi draws on Barad’s work to further explain that ‘matter and meaning are not separate elements’ (Barad, 2007, p. 3), hence they cannot be understood in the absence of the other: ‘matter and meaning are mutually articulated’ (Barad, 2007, p. 152). Moreover, sitting on a specific chair in a specific space with specific other human and non-human organisms and matter will regulate how and what we may say or do, or not say or do. (Lenz Taguchi, 2010, p. 5)

The location of understanding action, then, is at the interface – or the in-between – of the material world, the subject and the discursive meanings inscribed therein. We might suggest that these understandings resonate strongly with and may be theoretically understood in terms of a sociocultural

Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play

reading of affordance theory. The notion of nonhuman agency and responsibility is not explored within this chapter; rather, the contextual understandings of space and matter that humans enact in the world are brought into focus. Action and interaction in a space is shaped not only by human perception of the physical affordances of the space but also mediated by the social and cultural rules – the context – that relate to the space and all matter within it. Lenz Taguchi’s work adds to this notion that the characteristics of the material world and human response to them is part of the mediation embedded within action in a context and any understanding of this action needs to similarly address this complexity. What the space affords the individual (or group) is located at the interface of these aspects, and this notion applies to children’s action in outdoor spaces as much as it does to other situations. Lenz Taguchi suggests that we recognize the ‘in-between’ (2010, p. 5) of interaction – what takes place in between the subject, seen as ‘inscribed in discursive meanings’ (p. 5), and the material world, seen as ‘an active agent in the construction of discourse and reality’ (Dahlberg & Moss, 2010, p. xv). It is suggested here that the notion of the in-between may be conceptually encapsulated in an advanced understanding of the notion of affordance. Our understandings of behaviour are richer when we consider the complexities outlined in the preceding section; to avoid engagement with such complexity risks ­ shallow representation of that which we seek to understand.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS This chapter sought to provide an account of the development of affordance theory in relation to its use and adoption in literature and practice related to outdoor play. The chapter has outlined the origin of the theory and the inherent tensions within it, related to its positivist roots and its application within

53

contexts that are understood socioculturally. The development of a socioconstructivist understanding of affordance theory is outlined and it is suggested that as such the theory has much to offer those seeking to understand, explore, develop and encourage children’s outdoor play. Visual models of socioconstructivist affordance theory have also been presented in order to support the ongoing application of affordance theory to the field of outdoor play, without the loss of the complexity that such an application implies.

Note 1 The author would like to acknowledge the support of G. P. Freegard in the design of Figure 2.3.

REFERENCES Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (Eds.) (2008). Material feminisms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Bang, J. (2008). Conceptualising the environment of the child in a cultural-historical approach. In M. Hedegaard & M. Fleer (Eds.), Studying children – A cultural-historical approach. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialisation of reality. Difference: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10(2), 87–126. Barad, K. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biaioli (Ed.), The science studies reader. London: Routledge. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Carr, M. (2000). Technological affordance, social practice and learning narratives in an early childhood setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 61–79. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2010). Foreword. In H. Lenz Taguchi, Going beyond the theory/

54

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London: Routledge. Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Education Journal, 29(2), 111–117. Fjørtoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 83–97. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing, toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibson, E. J. (1988). Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 1–41. Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342. Haywood (2007). Anthony Gormley Blind Light. Haywood Gallery, London. Exhibition Guide.

Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to ­ environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29–37. Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1&2), 101–116. Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22,109–123. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental ­Psychology, 24, 178–179. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London: Routledge. Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning, 2(4), 402–413. Waters, J. (2011). A sociocultural consideration of child-initiated interaction with teachers in indoor and outdoor spaces. Unpublished PhD thesis, Swansea University. Waters, J. (2013). Children telling adults of their interest in wild spaces in Wales. In S. Knight (Ed.), International perspectives on Forest School: Natural spaces to play and learn. London: Sage.

3 Technology and Outdoor Play: Concerns and Opportunities Doris Bergen

INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses both theoretical and research-based issues regarding how the changing play environment, which now focuses more on technology-augmented play materials, may affect children’s outdoor play. It draws upon theories related to the representation modes, affordances and contexts of play, and the research on brain processes that rely on active, large motor play, embodied cognition and real world experiences. The loss of outdoor play experiences has both theoretical and practical implications for many areas of human behavior, not only for physical development. This chapter reviews the theory and research related to these issues and suggestions are made for ensuring that outdoor play continues to be part of every child’s experience.

TECHNOLOGY AND OUTDOOR PLAY: CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES One of the most salient types of memories that adults, especially those over the age

of 40, often recall are descriptions of their long, rich periods of outdoor play. Such play typically occurred in summer but also was present during after-school times, in winter and at other vacation periods. Activities remembered, depending on the weather, include bike riding or sledding, building forts or snowmen, swinging or hiking, playing stickball or hide and seek, exploring fields or streams, giving ‘plays’, or creating outdoor ‘houses’ for dolls or pets and designing ‘adventures’ for themselves. Studies of the many active outdoor types of play that adults have recalled playing during their childhood provide rich descriptions of their intense active engagement with the outdoor world (see Bergen, 2003; Levin, 2013). Although memories of play now being recalled by young adults in their 20s and 30s do include some such examples, increasingly their outdoor play memories are of activities lasting only brief time periods rather than long hours, of solitary play rather than group play, of play in their own yard rather than in a

56

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

neighborhood venue, and of participation in more ‘structured’ activities, such as adultdirected sports activities (see Davis & Bergen, 2014). In recent interviews with some parents of today’s children (ages 2 to 18), the outdoor and relatively unstructured types of playtimes of yesteryears are less often mentioned as primary activities (see Bergen, Davis, & Abbitt, 2016). In fact, many of these parents have commented on the differences in play between that of their own childhood and that of their children. Some of the parents also assert that they definitely try to include active outdoor play in their children’s schedules because otherwise it would not occur. There are a number of reasons that can be identified for this changing playscape, including an increase in academic focus at school that may have reduced recess and other such outdoor play times, parental safety concerns that may restrict children to their home or yard, more structured and supervised afterschool and summer environments due to working parent needs, and pressures on children to participate and excel in structured sport activities. However, an additional and increasingly pervasive reason is technology-play-creep! As the virtual world begins to replace the natural world as the preferred venue for ­ play, the time that children and adolescents have for outdoor or other active play is often s­ubsumed by play with media on technological devices such as computers, electronic tablets, Xbox™ or other game devices, and, most recently, by phone apps. While a few such devices may promote some physical or  outdoor activity, most require relatively sedentary and primarily indoor venues. As more and more play materials involve technology components, less and less play time involves open and unstructured environments, especially those in the natural world. Thus, the virtual world seems to be replacing the natural world as a primary venue for play.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHANGING PLAY WORLD FOR CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT Children’s play experiences have always been an important influence on their physical, social, emotional, cognitive and even moral development. Therefore, their greater play in the virtual world, especially if it results in their loss of playtime in the outdoor world, is likely to influence many areas of their development. Many writers have noted the current loss of children’s outdoor play time and described potential human development problems if such play, which was common in past centuries, is diminished. For example, Rivkin (2015) has commented, ‘The human species evolved in the outdoors … [and] … is evolution being disturbed when children grow and develop with minimal involvement in the outdoor world?’ (p. 697). She suggests that, because children are the most vulnerable to changes in the environment, it is especially important for them to continue to have access to the outdoors, which is ‘their natural ­habitat’ (p. 703). Dargan and Zeitlin (2015) also have noted that, although children living in cities did not have the open fields and forest spaces for play, they used to have a wide variety of traditional outdoor games played on sidewalks, streets and empty lots. More recently, however, instead of the large groups that were typically engaged in such play, only a few children are now observed playing outside. They assert that it is only in poorer neighborhoods where children ‘continue to play outdoors and creatively manipulate their environment’ (p. 662). Perhaps that is because technologyaugmented materials may be less available in such neighborhoods. Researchers on recess play have noted many benefits of such active, outdoor play, including not only physical skill improvement but also facilitation of cognitive, social, emotional and moral development (Jarrett,

Technology and Outdoor Play

2002; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005). In particular, active modes of thought (e.g., embodied cognition) as well as social/emotional understandings may be enhanced especially by activities during outdoor play time (Rivkin, 2015). Frost (2006), an expert on playground play, has commented on the ‘dissolution of children’s outdoor play’. In his view, this ‘play deprivation’ of children may affect their ‘fundamental survival skills’ (p. 7). He names a number of causes for the loss of outdoor play venues, such as safety and legal concerns and cuts in recess time, but also notes that it may be caused by the ‘recent shift from outdoor play to indoor technology play’ (p. 7). Researchers studying adult mental health have concluded that outdoor nature experiences may be a major contributor to the mental health of adults as well. These studies have evaluated the effects of a range of nature settings such as urban parks, forests, farmland and lakes/streams, not just wilderness areas. In a review of such studies, Bratman, Hamilton and Dailey (2012) concluded that many studies report positive effects of nature experiences on ‘memory, attention, concentration, impulse inhibition, and mood’ (p. 131), and they recommend more study of how ‘natural landscapes impact the mind’ (p. 132). Although these many authors have pointed to the importance of outdoor experiences and to the potential problems that loss of outdoor play might cause, the actual changes in children’s cognitive, social, emotional or moral development that might be due to loss of outdoor playtime have not been studied extensively. In fact, the implications of reduction in time children spend in outdoor play due to influences of technology-augmented play materials are only beginning to be explored. It is possible that the brain development of children who engage in more extensive technologically augmented play, and who consequentially spend less time in outdoor and active physical play, will be significantly different from the brain development of humans

57

in past centuries. Whether the loss of outdoor playtime will be a negative or a positive ­factor in human adaptation to conditions in the coming centuries is presently unknown, of course. However, it is important to examine potential long-term effects of these changes in the play environment on human development because such changes in the play of children and adolescents can have implications for the future of human society. Specifically, time spent with technology-augmented toys, online games, electronic tablets and other media may have an influence on typical brain development because of  the close dynamic connection between play development and brain development (see Bergen, 2015).

DYNAMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING PLAY AND BRAIN DEVELOPMENT Because both play development and brain development have the qualities of dynamic systems, and brain and play systems develop interactively during the childhood years and into adolescence, their dynamic interactions can greatly influence each other. Some of the qualities that have been identified as characteristic of dynamic systems include o­ penness, self-organization, non-linearity, complexity, phase shifts and sensitivity to initial conditions (see Thelen & Smith, 1994, or Vanderven, 2015, for details of dynamic systems theory). For example, both play development and brain development have self-organizing qualities that can be observed and the way both are organized may be affected by the environment provided for play. Also, the initial conditions provided for  play (more/less space, active/quiet body movements, simple/complex materials, ­t echnology-augmented/traditional) may affect developmental outcomes differentially because they may affect the pattern, order and intensity of the dynamically emerging brain structures.

58

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

In infancy and early childhood, play development follows a pattern that reflects early patterns of brain organization. Much early play involves practicing actions of the brain’s sensorimotor systems, which are rapidly developing in the brain during the  earliest years. Young children actively use their increasing physical and motor skills in extended practice play, including such play in the outdoor world. Children’s richness and extent of play experiences are likely to affect the process of synaptogenesis (establishing neural connections) by enhancing connections in the brain areas involved in those experiences. As the higher brain centers, such as the frontal lobes, develop, young children begin to engage in pretense, which becomes increasingly more elaborated during elementary age. Children also refine their motoric and cognitive skills in social games with rules and extensive creative play activities. Through their play, children are demonstrating the growth of their extensive cognitive schema, symbolic thought capacities, and ability to self-regulate and explain their own and others’ behavior (Bergen, 2015). Thus, the types and qualities of play experiences during the range of childhood years affect not only the development of children’s physical abilities, but also their symbolic thought capacities, social skills and ability to self-regulate. During the early elementary years, children’s thought processing speed and efficiency increases because brain pruning and myelination are extensive, resulting in their invention of complex rules in play and involvement in symbolic games. The extensive social nature of such play presently can be expressed in both face-to-face and virtual interactions. Computer games, electronic tablets and technology-augmented toys, which are becoming pervasive during this age period, provide different experiences that will affect how the brain organizes itself. Children of this age play online games with friends, care for virtual ‘pets’ and use interactive media of all types. These interests

extend into adolescence, although other playrelated activities like being in ‘plays’, hiking and participating in sports-related activities are still prominent. How the increasing involvement of children and youth with technology-augmented toys and virtual media will affect their cognitive, social, emotional, physical and moral development is presently unknown, however. Thus, the question of whether and in what ways the diminishment or even loss of outdoor play experiences will affect future human development is one that needs to be explored. One way this area of study can be situated is within three recently discussed theoretical paradigms that can provide direction for both concurrent and longitudinal research.

DIFFERENCES IN VIRTUAL AND NATURAL WORLD EXPERIENCES In a recent publication, Bergen, Davis and Abbitt (2016) have drawn on a number of theoretical paradigms in order to outline the differences between play experiences of the past and those that involve play with new technological components. These paradigms include analysis of cognitive thought processes and representation types involved in types of play (Bruner, 1964; Piaget, 1945, 1965; Vygotsky, 1967), examination of the affordances of play objects (Carr, 2000; Gibson, 1969), and comparison of contexts in which play occurs (Dey, 2001; Milgram & Kishino, 1994).

Cognitive Process Factors Both Piaget and Vygotsky closely linked cognitive development with various types of child-initiated ‘active’ play experiences. For example, Piaget (1945) described three stages of play (practice, pretense, games with rules) that appeared in tandem with three stages of cognitive development (sensorimotor,

Technology and Outdoor Play

preoperational, concrete operational). In the sensorimotor stage, the infant’s primary, secondary and tertiary physical reactions occurring in play become increasingly coordinated, resulting in the ability to invent new means by mental combinations. Piaget stated that infant play, which initially consists of interactions with objects to get responses, proceeds to the coordination of a number of action schemes on objects in play, and results in the ability to symbolize objects mentally with pretense and language. During the preoperational years (ages 2–7), the child’s thinking processes, which are unidimensional, primarily perceptual, irreversible and egocentric, are enhanced by children’s self-initiated and elaborated pretend play, which involves using mental (and physical) representations to manipulate symbols. Finally, in the concrete operational years (7–11), children gain the ability to think logically and reversibly, aided by ‘games with rules’ that require interactions with other children, understanding the perspectives of those children, negotiating rules and ‘decentering’ (Piaget, 1965). Although subsequent research has shown that some of these cognitive processes and play behaviors may not be as closely linked to the ages Piaget identified, the general inter-related pattern of active play/cognitive growth has been robustly observed. A question that arises, therefore, is whether young children’s play interactions with technology-augmented toys and virtual materials will change these linkages with cognitive development, especially if the active (and often outdoor) play that children typically have exhibited changes materially. (See Bergen, 2008, for further details of this Piagetian interactive perspective.) Vygotsky (1967) was particularly concerned about how thought and language interacted during the early years. He discussed how thought was initially biologically based, although even infants express emotional release, demonstrate social reactions and begin labeling objects. He saw the period between age 2 and age 7 as being especially important for language and thought

59

development and stressed that active and elaborated pretend play role-taking was crucial for learning self-regulation skills. While he did not specifically discuss outdoor play, his view that active pretense was essential for cognitive and language development was clear. That is, he stressed that higher levels of cognition were furthered through active and elaborate pretend play, and in past generations children often have engaged in such play (e.g., being ‘explorers’ or ‘pirates’) during their outdoor play. Vygotsky asserted that thought becomes internal and culturally mediated during later childhood, but these processes are influenced by the intuitive and spontaneous concepts that were practiced in children’s earlier pretend play experiences (some of which would have involved outdoor play). (See Bergen, 2008, for further details of this Vygotskian interactive perspective.) An especially relevant perspective that gives support to the importance of outdoor play was outlined by Bruner (1964), who designated three cognitive representation modes that occur during the first few years of life and described the stimuli needed to elicit each of these modes. Bruner said that earliest cognition came from enactive representation involving motoric responses. The many bodily active experiences in which young children engage, such as rolling balls, climbing steps, pouring water, rolling down hills, digging in dirt or jumping in sand, enable them to encounter, act upon and understand the behavior of objects in the world. He saw this first level of cognitive representation as a basic requirement that would later enable development of iconic representations (which are now pervasive in technologyaugmented play materials). Iconic representations are images of real objects that ‘stand for’ actual objects and, thus, can substitute (partially) for active, real world experiences. It is not really known how this level of understanding may differ if children have not had a wealth of enactive (physically active) experiences. Bruner asserted that being able to move to and understand the third and final

60

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

level of cognitive experiences, symbolic ones, which use arbitrary language or other symbolic codes, is based on experiences from the two earlier stages. In their traditional play, young children typically have engaged in all three of these representation modes in both their indoor and outdoor play. However, if enactive cognition is limited by less active (and time-limited outdoor) play, the development of the second and third stages of cognition might be affected in some way. For example, if children are immersed in ‘block play’ on an electronic tablet rather than in carrying, stacking and knocking down blocks, their enactive level of cognition may be diminished (see Bergen et al., 2016, for further details on this Brunerian perspective). At the present time, the hypothesis that active, real world experiences are vital for in-depth and expansive cognitive development, which is promoted by all three of these theorists, has not been studied extensively by researchers. However, it is certainly an important question for future research.

Affordance Factors Other theorists have discussed cognition in relation to the features of the objects that are present in the environment and that elicit human actions. This view also has implications for children’s cognitive and social development. They draw on the theories of Gibson (1969), who asserted that the objects in the environment are directly perceived and provide affordances that elicit actions that foster understanding. That is, the perceived actions suggested by objects affect the ways they are used. For example, a ball suggests that it be rolled or thrown and a fuzzy bear suggests that it be hugged and cared for. Thus, the affordances of the play objects and other environmental features may affect both the actions of children and subsequently their  cognitive and social understanding. Affordances of play materials may suggest many actions that the child can perform with the objects or they may dictate a narrow

range of actions, thus promoting either creative, complex interactions or simple, routinized actions. In this view, because cognition is ‘situated’ in the environment, young children construct their cognitive schema based on the kinds of affordances that are present  (Resnick, 1994). That is, the types and extent of affordances situated in play materials may greatly affect children’s cognitive development. There are three affordance criteria that have been suggested by Carr (2000) that can be useful for evaluating the action potentials of various play materials. These criteria are transparency, challenge and accessibility. Play materials with transparency have qualities that enable the player to understand the concepts inherent in the toy or object. Transparent play materials suggest how the player should understand and interact with them. For example, puzzles, balls and blocks have transparency because they signal how they should be used. Children do not need to be trained to use these objects in play because the objects themselves suggest action schemes to use. The outdoor world has many transparent materials but also has less transparent ones. For example, to a child the transparent message of a hill may suggest running up and down, rolling or sliding down and the transparent message of a water puddle may suggest splashing in it! On the other hand, a play object that requires extensive guidance in order to know how to play lacks transparency. In relation to technology-augmented toys and computer programs, they may have different levels of transparency. As adults even can attest, technology features may range from those eliciting easily obvious actions to those that are undecipherable in regard to actions! Of course, transparency also differs with age and experience. An important point is that perceiving the physical affordances of objects promotes development of mental schemes that increase transparency and extend it to other domains of understanding (Papert, 1980). Thus, play with indoor objects that

Technology and Outdoor Play

require a minimal variety of actions or play in the outdoor world in which a wide variety of actions are suggested would have different transparency levels and messages. The second affordance criterion identified by Carr is challenge. Play materials with many possibilities for action rather than a few options for action have greater challenge. Some high challenge play materials are blocks, sand, clay, water and many other materials in outdoor environments because they have many possibilities for actions. Toys that require only one type of action or interaction (e.g., make one sound when activated) have little challenge, while one that makes a number of sounds or changes in shape or action would have higher challenge. Often, children increase the challenge themselves by ignoring the routinized message of the toy and combining it with other materials or actions to increase the challenge. For example, outdoor slides or swings may have minimal challenge so children may go down the slide backwards or stand on the swings to increase the challenge. Similarly, children often increase the challenge of indoor toys by combining them in various ways. It is common for them to combine many types of toys for this purpose. Thus, they may build block garages or roads for trucks or houses for dolls or even create ‘towns’ with many garages, houses and stores. A technology-designed toy may have some built-in challenge that enables it to require a variety of different or more complex actions. However, it is rarely easy to increase the challenge of such a toy without changing the technology itself. The third characteristic in Carr’s schema, accessibility, involves the degree of social participation that a toy affords. For example, a game that involves parent–child or peer collaboration or a rocking boat that requires two children to make it rock would have accessibility. One of the features of many outdoor playthings is that interactions with other children are facilitated by the play materials. Many outdoor games and play activities require or work best with more than one

61

player. That is, a ball or jump rope can be used alone but the play value is greatly increased when other children also play. Many outdoor playthings (e.g., a seesaw) actually require another person to operate correctly! Some technology-augmented play materials invite social participation; however, most of the time that social interaction is virtual rather than face-to-face. Although some technology-augmented games are designed for two players, there may still be minimal social interaction. These applications can make face-to-face social participation quite difficult. There often is an ‘actor’, who manipulates the program, and a ‘watcher’ who just observes the action in a ‘turn-­taking’ interaction.

Context Factors Typically, when children play, they do so in the context of a ‘real world’ environment. This environment might be inside a house, school, or club or outside on a street, hill, backyard or park. When technology-­ augmented devices are used, there is a second contextual dimension – the ‘virtual’ environment. Therefore, the context for play activities may be physical (i.e., real world) or virtual (i.e., replicating real world). According to Dey and colleagues (Dey, 2001; Dey, Abowd, & Salber, 2001), understanding of the information in the environment is affected by the context in which the information is presented. Thus, in play the context is a mediator of the interactions, and the contextual factors (physical or virtual) affect both the player and the play material. Marsh (2010) suggests that social interaction can  occur in ‘both the virtual world and the physical world’ and gives the example of ‘rough and tumble play’ also being shown in  online play when children ‘engage in avatar-to-avatar contact’ (p. 32). While this may be true, it is still clear that in such inter­active play the child is not exercising the bodily physical characteristics that would be  exercised in actual outdoor rough and tumble play.

62

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Milgram and Kishino (1994) have suggested that there is also a ‘mixed reality’ environment that combines both real and virtual characteristics and some of these environments have been invented. That is, a play environment can have real and virtual objects, direct and non-direct viewing, and both real and virtual images. However, play environments presently of this type are p­rimarily indoor rather than outdoor environments. Technology developers are engaged in much debate as to what the differing effects of physical and virtual play will be and how to facilitate both. However, there is no question that the experience of play in virtual environments has qualities that differ greatly from outdoor play in a wide variety of ­physical environments. (See Bergen et al., 2016, for a detailed explanation of the contextual factors.)

RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY PLAY Although a few studies of children’s responses to varied types of technology play materials have been reported, there are no longitudinal studies focused on these questions. Thus, only speculation can be made at this point about the potential long-term effects of the encroachment of technology on children’s play experiences and on their outdoor playtime. The differences in children’s play experiences with technology-enhanced play materials have begun to be answered partially by researchers who have investi­ gated ­ short-term effects of such play. For example, Bergen (2004, 2007) investigated the effects  of children’s play with ‘talking’ and ‘non-talking’ Rescue Hero™ figures and  Bergen, Hutchinson, Nolan and Weber (2010) studied the effects of parent and infant responses to the technology-­augmented Laugh & Learn™ toy. Also, students of Bergen (Strigens, Vondrachek and Wilson, 2006) compared the effects of a ‘talking’ book to experience with traditional books.

In all of these studies, the toy’s many initiating directions and suggestions required a long exploratory and practice play period for the players to find out what the toy did before there was any possibility of the child (or parent) taking charge of the action. Thus, pretend play examples were very limited in all of these studies. Because these were toys, however, not virtual images, the children in all three studies did experience enactive representation modes because they activated the many toy stimuli. In the first study, iconic and symbolic levels were focused on the toys ‘talking’ about fire and other disasters and directing the children to do certain actions to quell the disasters. In the other two studies, the enactive representation level was expressed in the toys’ prompts, which promoted simple repetitive actions to learn about what the toy did. The iconic and symbolic features primarily focused on activating ‘learning’ aspects (alphabet letters, songs, language). In relation to the affordances, all of the toys were not immediately transparent and thus exploration was a major interactive mode. The challenge level was primarily focused on finding out what the toy did rather than deciding on ways to make the toy act, although some children were able to ignore the toys’ messages and provided their own challenges. For example, by the second play sessions with the firefighters some child pairs developed scripts related to their own experiences (e.g., going to bed after the fire was out or going home to cook dinner). Those children who were paired with another child or with their parent had more socially accessible experiences, although the interactions were relatively routinized. Other researchers have found similar effects. For example, Wooldridge and Shapka (2012) reported that a ‘talking book’ condition provided poorer parent–child interaction than a typical book reading condition. They stated that exploratory action was primary rather than literacy engagement. ParishMorris et  al. (2013) also studied such book experiences and found that parents’ speech

Technology and Outdoor Play

was more directive about operating the book instead of focused on story content. Researchers who studied effects of infants watching a DVD that taught words reported no increase in language growth even from a number of exposures. The significant predictor of growth was the amount of time adults read to the children (Robb, Richert, & Wartella, 2009). Also, in a recent study of parent/child interaction with a ‘shape sorter’ toy, Zosh, Verdine, Filipowicz et al. (2015) found that parents used more spatial language and more varied overall language in play with the non-technology-enhanced toy. Some behaviors can be learned, however! Smith (2002) has reported that a toddler who learned technology-related responses from activating DVDs in play began to ‘click’ his parents when he wanted them to respond! In relation to the criteria discussed in this chapter, these studies support the view that most of the presently available technologyaugmented toys encourage routinized enactive experiences and further only basic levels of iconic and symbolic understanding. This may be partially due to the lack of transparency that many of these toys have upon initial use, and it is unknown if long-term use would increase the quality of the play experience. The challenge in the toys initially is just to know how the toy works and then those features must be overridden if the child wants to use the toy in other ways. In regard to accessibility, although most of the studies involved child–child or child–adult play, the social aspects reported were simple rather than elaborated in pretense and games were of routinized character. For example, playing peeka-boo by opening and shutting the door of the infant toy was the primary game played by parents and infants. At present, the research on the effects of technology-augmented toys has focused on toys that are played with primarily indoors. The outdoor use of such toys still needs to be investigated. Also, the majority of studies of technology-augmented play have been focused on young children and their interactions with toys that can be activated

63

and operated in various ways. Although there have been some anecdotal reports and videos on the internet, at the present time detailed research studies on the effects of play with electronic tablets or phones is sparse and studies of play with such materials in the out of doors are not available. However, some informal analyses using the representation mode, affordance and context criteria can provide a basis for more in-depth study.

TECHNOLOGY-AUGMENTED REPRESENTATION MODES, AFFORDANCES AND CONTEXTS There are many questions in need of further research on how these newer play materials may affect the way children play and, especially, how these modes of play may or may not affect outdoor play.

Representation Modes As noted earlier, much technology-augmented play involves only minimal enactive experiences. Such play is primarily sedentary, with activation of fingers and mind but little activation of whole body experiences. Such play is very rich in iconic experiences because the virtual images are designed to be ‘stand-ins’ for actual bodily activity. Players ‘run’, ‘jump’, ‘climb’ and ‘fight’ virtually while sitting or standing for long periods. Although there have been some ‘dance’ types of programs that encourage children to move, these are few compared to ones that encourage sedentary but virtual movement. Symbolic play experiences are also extensive in technology-augmented play, especially because designers require players to recognize and use many invented symbols that require responses during the play. Thus, the representation modes of technology-augmented play differ from those of outdoor play extensively because such play primarily

64

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

involves enactive modes, while iconic and symbolic modes are less prominent.

Affordances The messages from the affordances of these play materials also differ from the messages children gain from outdoor play environments. Although physical action transparency may be high for experienced technology play users because they may know how to press buttons or screens, point to virtual objects or push images on and off screens, these types of physical actions are usually narrow compared to those actions elicited during outdoor activities. Also, most of the physical actions typically required in technology-augmented play, especially of virtual types, do not involve whole body activity, and, in contrast, these actions are prominent in outdoor play. The cognitive aspects of transparency also differ between technology-augmented and outdoor play because the activities undertaken and tasks to be solved in the first instance have been designed by the technology developer rather than the child. That is, the problems are not ‘found’ by the child but presented to the child by the toy designer. The social transparency aspect also differs because the toys or games are often designed for play alone or with virtual players rather than with other children who are present in the outdoor environment. In regard to the second affordance quality, challenge, the levels of challenge are often built into the toy or game, but these are also designed by the technology developer rather than the child. The type of challenges presented in the outdoor world may be less clear, but they often involve high physical action and the child is in charge of the level of increased challenge. Finally, the accessibility of others to engage  in play also differs from outdoor play with children who are physically present. Sometimes there is a technologyaugmented ‘turn-­ taking’ social experience that involves one child as the player and others as watchers until their turn occurs. However,

socially interactive games like kickball, jump rope and tag that were typical of outdoor play have very different accessibility dimensions.

Contexts Finally, the context of play, which may range from completely ‘physical’ to completely ‘virtual’, has contrasting dimensions between technology-augmented materials and outdoor play materials. Although many attempts are made by technology designers to simulate ‘real-world’ experiences or to combine real-world and virtual-world play, there is little in such play that really involves ‘embodied cognition’ (Wilson, 2002). It is hard to identify what qualities are missing from virtual world play, but everyone who has had a conversation with a friend’s or relative’s image online knows that the real and the virtual world differ. The virtual image provides many aspects of the person, but not what the ‘real’ world contact reveals. Also, it is clear that a trek through a virtual woods path or a splash in a virtual stream is nothing like the actual outdoor experience of hiking or wading. It is safer, quieter and much less challenging than the real world experience and does not produce that tired but physically vigorous feeling that a real hike provides.

COMBINING VIRTUAL AND REAL WORLD OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES Because of this recognition that real world outdoor experiences are fewer and that one of the causes of this decline (although not the  only one) is the pervasive growth of technology-augmented play materials, a ­ number of technology play designers are now attempting to provide enactive outdoor experiences that are facilitated by technological play devices. For example, Lund and colleagues (Lund, Klibo, & Jensen, 2005; Lund & Marti, 2009) have designed a set of robotic building

Technology and Outdoor Play

blocks called ‘Playware’ that can be used in playgrounds. These ‘intelligent’ blocks are flexible and adapt to children’s movements and balancing experiences by giving feedback on the child’s movements. These designers are promoting playgrounds that involve ‘body– brain interplay’ (Lund et al., 2005, p. 167) that promotes children’s physical play and experimentation. Another designer, Allen (2004), has noted that ‘haptic’ experiences are lacking in many ­technology-augmented play materials and, because touch is one of the primary ways humans learn, they recommend that technology-­ augmented play materials that involve many types of touch experiences should be developed. Anderson (2015) also suggests that because embodied cognition is important, designers of technologically augmented play materials should include ‘physical interactions with the world around us and via our various senses’ (p. 131). Anderson gives examples of some designs that incorporate aspects of embodied cognition. While many of these designers do not specifically address the use of these devices in outdoor play, they are providing a rationale for designers to focus on how technology-augmented play materials can be used in outdoor environments. Recently, ideas such as having children use their phones and other technology-augmented devices to take pictures during their outdoor experiences and activities that require children to use apps to direct them through woods or other outdoor areas on ‘treasure hunts’ have been designed. Verhaegh, Soute, Kessels and Mark­ opoulos (2006) note that a number of computer game designers are creating games that can be played outdoors but that most of them are for adults and designed for individual players. They first collected interview data from children and report that they found children desire games that have physical activity, excitement, role play and continuous involvement. Then they designed a n­ umber of game ‘concepts’ that involved teams or individual children. They conducted a test of an outdoor game prototype they called Camelot, which was intended for groups of

65

children age 7–10 and required both collaborative and cooperative actions. In this game the players had to use small robotic devices to collect virtual resources that were in different places around the playing field in order to build a physical castle. The teams competed to see who could build the castle faster. The designers concluded that the addition of the technology did enrich the game by providing feedback and making the game more challenging. Therefore, they believe that designing these types of games can be promising because they both support physical outdoor play and stimulate social interaction. However, such efforts to incorporate technology into outdoor world experiences are still in an early stage and it is unclear how much of an effect this effort will have on broadening present day children’s play experiences to include more play in the outdoors. At the present time other factors that have contributed to the loss of outdoor playtime are discussed more extensively and the role of technology-augmented outdoor play materials has not received much attention or design effort. At the present time technology-augmented outdoor play for children is not extensive and there are many questions about its cost, design features and ability to engage children in the outdoors. As technology-augmented play becomes more and more pervasive, however, its prominence as a factor in outdoor play loss may be increasingly noted, and more efforts to design technology-augmented play experiences in the outdoor world for children may be initiated.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Because of the dearth of research on these questions, presently only hypotheses about the effects of extensive play with these devices can be suggested. Because these play materials involve virtual objects and require minimal physical movement (often fingers only!), the nature of the play may be missing robust

66

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

enactive representation modes and may not involve a wide range of affordance features that support active physical play. Two types of studies are especially needed: ones showing what behaviors are promoted by realistic and virtual technology-augmented active play and ones investigating how such play may be affecting the amount of time children engage in outdoor play. There are some reports that young families spend less time exposing their children to natural outdoor experiences, but these reports are primarily anecdotal. A third possibility in need of attention, however, is whether and how outdoor play experiences may be able to incorporate technology-augmented elements and thus extend the richness and extent of outdoor play. Here are four questions that researchers on outdoor play should be trying to answer: 1 What differences in representation modes, affordances and contexts between technology-­ augmented play and natural outdoor play are of concern for possible effects on children’s development? 2 What are the varied developmental effects of different types of technology-augmented play materials as compared to different types of outdoor experiences? 3 What are the varied developmental effects of differential ratios of time spent in technologyaugmented (primarily indoor) play as compared to time spent in outdoor play? 4 How will the incorporation of technology into outdoor play experiences affect children’s development?

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADVOCACY The transition from bodily active outdoor to quiet and less bodily active indoor and usually technology-augmented play is increasingly evident for all age levels in our present society. Many outdoor experiences for both adults and children now involve the majority of people just sitting and watching a few competent individuals ‘play’ at various sports (both real world and virtual). However, there are some advocacy recommendations for

individuals who care for children, designers who create play materials for children, and policy-makers in the broader society if they want to support efforts to preserve the values of outdoor play. The first recommendation is that parents, educators and others who make decisions for young children should both model themselves and encourage children’s regular outdoor play activities. At the present time, many adults do not engage in many outdoor leisure activities and do not even interact regularly in playful experiences outdoors with their children. Educators who are focused on assessment standards have also reduced the time for active learning in their classrooms. However, they should provide a strong voice for the value of active outdoor learning as an essential complement for the present extensive use of computer-based programs that ‘teach’. A second recommendation is for designers of technology-augmented play materials. They should focus more of their efforts on ways to enhance children’s play in the outdoor environment by inventing technology-augmented play materials for use in the outdoors. That is, instead of inventing more ‘droids’ that take on most of the ‘active’ aspects of play, they could create ‘play partners’ that involve children’s activity in making play in the outdoor world even more interesting and satisfying. Finally, a third recommendation is for public policy-makers. They should encourage the preservation and creation of outdoor areas that encourage children’s ‘right to play’, enable all children and families to experience safe but challenging outdoor play venues, and support the invention of technology-­ augmented play materials that can be used in the outdoor world.

REFERENCES Allen, M. (2004). Tangible interfaces in smart toys. In J. Goldstein, D. Buckingham, & G. Brougere (Eds.), Toys, games, and media (pp. 179–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Technology and Outdoor Play

Anderson, S. P. (2015). Learning and thinking with things. In J. Follett (Ed.), Designing for emerging technologies: UX for genomics, robotics, and the internet of things (pp. 112–138). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Bergen, D. (2003). College students’ memories of their childhood play: A ten year comparison. Paper presentation at the annual conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Chicago, November. Bergen, D. (2004). Preschool children’s play with ‘talking’ and ‘non-talking’ Rescue Heroes: Effects of technology-enhanced figures on the types and themes of play. In J. Goldstein, D. Buckingham, & G. Brougere (Eds.), Toys, games and media (pp. 195–206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bergen, D. (2007). Communicative actions and language narratives in preschoolers’ play with ‘talking’ and ‘non-talking’ Rescue Heroes. In O. Jarrett & D. Sluss (Eds.), Play investigations in the 21st century. (Play and Culture Series, Vol. 7, J. Johnson, Series Ed., pp. 229–248). Lanham, MA: University Press of America. Bergen, D. (2008). Human development: Traditional and contemporary theories. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Halll. Bergen, D. (2015). Play, technology toy affordances, and brain development: Considering research and policy issues. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (3rd ed., pp 435–442). New York: Routledge. Bergen, D., Davis, D., & Abbitt, J. (2016). Technology play and brain development: Infancy to adolescence and future implications. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Bergen, D., Hutchinson, K., Nolan, J., & Weber, D. (2010). Effects of infant–parent play with a technology-enhanced toy: Affordance related action and communicative interaction. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(1), 1–17. Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Dailey, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 118–136. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.

67

Carr, M. (2000). Technological affordances, social practice and learning narratives in an early childhood setting. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 61–79. Dargan, A., & Zeitlin, S. (2015). City play. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (3rd ed., pp. 311–318). New York: Routledge. Davis, D., & Bergen, D. (2014). Relationships among play behaviors reported by college students and their responses to moral issues: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28, 484–498. Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Human–Computer Interaction Institute. Paper 34. http://repository.cmu.edu/ hcii/34. Dey, A. K., Abowd, G. D., & Salber, D. (2001). A conceptual framework and a toolkit for supporting the rapid prototyping of contextaware applications. Human–Computer Interaction, 16, 97–166. Frost, J. L. (2006). The dissolution of children’s outdoor play: Causes and consequences. Common Good Conference, 31(1), 1–26. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton–Century–Croft. Jarrett, O. S. (2002). Recess in elementary school: What does the research say? ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education 1–7, ED466331. Levin, D. (2013). Beyond remote-controlled childhood: Teaching young children in the media age. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Lund, H. H., Klibo, T., & Jensen, C. (2005). Playware technology for physically activating play. Artificial Life and Robotics, 9(4), 165–174. Lund, H. H., & Marti, P. (2009). Designing modular robotic playware. Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009. The 18th IEEE International Symposium (pp. 115–121). Marsh, J. (2010). Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(1), 23–39. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE

68

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Brighton, MA: Harvester. Parish-Morris, J., Mahajan, N., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Collins, M. F. (2013). Once upon a time: Parent–child dialogue and storybook reading in the electronic era. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(3), 200–211. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19. Piaget, J. (1945). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Heinemann. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Norton Resnick, L. B. (1994). Situated rationalism: Biological and social preparation for learning. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Rivkin, M. (2015). Children’s outdoor play: An endangered species. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (3rd ed., pp. 329–336). New York: Routledge. Robb, M. B., Richert, R. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2009). Just a talking book? Word learning from watching baby videos. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 27–45. Smith, C. R. (2002). Click on me! An example of how a toddler used technology in play. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(1), 5–20.

Strigens, D., Vondrachek, S., & Wilson, J. (2006). Comparisons of literacy effects of technology-enhanced and non-technology enhanced books. Unpublished thesis. Miami University, Oxford, OH. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Vanderven, K. (2015). Protean selves, trading zones, and nonlinear dynamical systems. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (3rd ed., pp. 877–899). New York: Routledge. Verhaegh, J., Soute, I., Kessels, A., & Markopoulos, P. (2006). On the design of Camelot, and outdoor game for children. Presentation at IDC 06, June 7–9, Tampere, Finland. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6–18. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. Wooldridge, M. B., & Shapka, J. (2012). Playing with technology: Mother–toddler interaction scores lower during play with electronic toys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 211–218. Zosh, J. M., Verdine, B. N., Filipowicz, A., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Talking shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 136–144.

4 Outdoor Play in Recess Time Robyn M. Holmes and Kristen E. Kohm

When we began work on this chapter, memories of our childhood play experiences immediately surfaced. We fondly recalled playing Manhunt and Jail, games with expansive play spaces that traversed our neighborhoods. We also played sports, freeze tag, pretend, in tree forts, and in the woods and mud. We were by today’s standards always ‘dirty’ and oh what fun we had. We enjoyed playing outdoors where we (and our caregivers) never worried about our safety (see also Chapter 7, this volume). On school grounds, we played four square, engaged in chasing games, jumped rope, played sports and socialized with our friends. Parents today often lament that their children do not want to play outside and instead prefer indoor play activities that involve game systems or interacting with social media. This pattern seems to have a wide geographic distribution. I [RMH] have conversed with parents in the north-eastern United States and Pacific Rim who bemoan the fact that their children do not play outdoors enough (Holmes, 2012;

see also Clements, 2004). In some communities, outdoor play is extremely limited or non-existent. For example, in Taiwan outdoor preschool play is quite rare, fuelled in part by concerns with safety and parents eager to sue over a child’s injury (Chang, 2015). In Toronto, Canada, many parents view outdoor play as unsafe for the children. These caregivers worry about the children playing in spacing where strangers and reckless drivers are a real concern (Faulkner et al., 2015). One of the most expansive international studies on child development and play supports the view that parents restrict their children’s outdoor play for fear of strangers and traffic concerns (Family Kids and Youth/Research Now, 2010). What factors contribute to changing play patterns regarding children’s outdoor play? We suggest technological advances (Holmes, 2012), unsafe neighborhoods (Family Kids and Youth/Research Now, 2010), lack of play space and parents taking control over their children’s play experiences (Gray, 2011).

70

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

With neighborhood outdoor play disappearing for some children, outdoor play at school during recess becomes an important and safe space where children are free to explore, exercise and socialize. Yet the movement to reduce recess time or completely remove it from the school day continues in American school districts. The authors both enjoyed recess as elementary school children and fondly recall memories of playing games, socializing with friends and enjoying a break from schoolwork. Recess was fun for us also because it was the only time during the day when we enjoyed the freedom to do what we wanted and in a cultural space that was uniquely ours. We find it both sad and counterproductive to deprive schoolchildren of recess. In this chapter we address outdoor play during school recess time. We frame our work with the position that recess is critical to children’s development and academic success. Recess is equally important to children’s learning as are their core subjects (Waite-Stupiansky and Findlay, 2001). We present a review of the recess debate, children’s outdoor play preferences, the benefits of play, and play in outdoor informal play places in non-Western settings.

OVERVIEW OF THE RECESS DEBATE Many children who attend school worldwide receive a break from school activities during their school day. Lee et al. (2007) view recess as break time from the mental demanding tasks in which children engage during the school day. For most children, this break or recess takes place outdoors and its duration varies widely within the United States and across nations. In the United States, the traditional outdoor recess period follows lunchtime and lasts approximately 10–15 minutes (Dockett and Meckley, 2007; Pellegrini and Bohn, 2005; Pellegrini and Holmes, 2006).

In Australia, recess breaks are approximately 30 minutes in duration and separate from a one-hour lunchtime break (Dockett and Meckley, 2007). In England, primary school children have three breaks during the day, the longest occurring at lunchtime. Similarly, Japanese children enjoy breaks after each class and a long lunch break. In Africa, Ugandan children attend school for eight hours but have numerous and lengthy breaks throughout the school day (Jarrett, 2013). Although recess is typically the shortest period of most American students’ school routine, children cross-culturally view recess as the best time of their school day (Dockett and Meckley, 2007). Empirical evidence supports children’s view that recess is an important part of their school day. It is a time when children are free to play, socialize and interact with peers without much adult interference or direct supervision (Blaes et  al., 2013; Jarrett, 2013; Pellegrini and Holmes, 2006). In the twenty-first century the debate about the value of recess continues despite the growing empirical evidence that connects play to learning. Why then are primary schools across the United States reducing recess time or eliminating recess? For example, in a trend that has lasted two decades, almost half of the 16,000 school districts in the United States have either modified, eliminated, or are in discussions to remove recess from children’s elementary school routines because of increased pressure from numerous sources to improve school achievement and test scores (American Association for the Child’s Right to Play, 2000; McMurrer, 2007). The answer to the recess debate question is multifaceted and involves several issues. The first is politically motivated. The federal law, through the No Child Left Behind Act, put pressure on schools to meet the academic standards incorporated into the law (Adams, 2011). The financial incentives to meet these standards influenced school

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

p­ olicy. School boards and districts began to sacrifice recess for more instructional time in the hopes of improving test scores (Fedewa and Ahn, 2011; Jarrett, 2013). As parents and lawmakers demand accountability, school boards, superintendents and school administrators have opted to eliminate recess and the arts in lieu of increased instructional time (Pellegrini, 2008). This movement to reduce recess appears in other nations, such as the United Kingdom (Blatchford and Sumpner, 1998). In fact, reducing or eliminating recess often occurs despite support from administrators and teachers to include recess in the school curriculum. For example, Patte (2009) surveyed teachers and administrators in Pennsylvania to gather information on their attitudes regarding recess and recess policy. He discovered that many Pennsylvania schools reduced recess time due to increased pressure to obtain higher standardized test scores. What was interesting is that a majority of teachers and administrators who participated in the project did not agree with decreasing children’s recess time. Instead, these individuals believed these types of recess policies would negatively affect children’s learning. His work demonstrates the power of policy-makers in shaping children’s school experiences and the powerlessness of educators and administrators who must respond to the pressures placed upon them at the local, state and federal level. Another argument for eliminating recess connects to aggression and bullying on school premises and some individuals have targeted playgrounds as spaces in which bullying takes place (Pellegrini and BohnGettler, 2013). There is no denying the importance of keeping children safe and the role of schools in being proactive to prevent bullying on school premises. Many states have laws to protect against harassment and bullying, including cyberbullying, and some of these include criminal prosecution. Being the victim of bullying clearly affects a child’s

71

overall well-being. Short-term and long-term effects include learned helplessness and adult mental health issues such as anxiety and depression (Smokoski and Kopasz, 2005). In rare cases, children have tragically taken their own lives to escape bullying (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2014). However, empirical evidence supports that very low levels of aggression actually occur in the ‘open setting’ of playgrounds during recess. These open settings allow children the freedom to enter and leave play activities and provide children with opportunities to negotiate conflicts that might end their play. The result is less aggressive behavior (Jarrett, 2002). Rather than abolishing recess, school systems might consider increasing the number of playground supervisors to discourage playground bullying (Pellegrini and BohnGettler, 2013). Finally, school definitions of recess vary (Pellegrini, 2005, 2008). Some schools offer substantial break times for children; others none at all. Policies on recess can vary even within the same state and country as local school boards approve school curriculum. We define recess as a time of the school day where children are free to engage in unstructured play activities with peers free from adult guidance and control. In fact, some schools say they have recess when in fact they do not. What they do have are adult-led structured play periods that include preselected games over which children have no control. They may also have either very limited break times or physical education exercises cleverly disguised as recess (Dill et al., 2011; Pellegrini, 2005, 2008). Children also do gain the same benefits from physical education classes that they do from recess. Physical education classes place demands on children just the way classes in math and science do (Pellegrini, 2008). Not one of these alternatives provides children with the same benefits as the unstructured play opportunities they experience during outdoor recess.

72

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS We believe several frameworks are relevant to our discussion on outdoor play. Each of these perspectives highlights the connection between outdoor play and learning, a central theme of this handbook. Some frameworks speak to the general connection between play and learning while others deal with play and learning in specific developmental domains. We begin with play as progress, a dominant framework based in education and psychology that connects play and learning.

participation in activities with others. This view surfaces in his constructs – the zone of proximal development and scaffolding. Participating in activities such as pretend play provides children with opportunities to internalize cultural meanings and values. Scaffolding provides children with assistance while learning the skills and abilities their cultural setting supports. In Vygotsky’s view, individuals and the cultures in which they are situated mutually constitute one another such that learning takes place in particular cultural contexts.

Play as Progress

Piaget

Sutton-Smith (2001) introduced several play theories whose origins trace back to ancient discourses to describe and interpret play. These discourses include power, fate, identity and progress. Play as progress is a dominant rhetoric in Western education and psychology. Play as progress connects to the equation play=learning (Singer et al., 2006). In this rhetoric, play is adaptive in the sense that it provides a medium in which children acquire skills and abilities that help prepare them to become successful later in life. For example, in pretend play such as playing house, children learn about social roles, gender roles, division of labor and the skills necessary to maintain a household.

Piaget (1936, 1945, 1973) viewed intelligence as a person’s ability to adapt to his or her environment. Piaget, like Vygotsky, believed that young children are curious and actively involved in their own learning. One major difference between the two is that Piaget emphasized self-initiated discovery whereas Vygotsky placed more emphasis on social collaboration in cognitive development. Piaget’s theory describes children’s cognitive development as a sequence of gradual and subtle qualitative changes that take place as children pass through invariant stages beginning with infancy and ending in adolescence. These changes surface in cognitive advancements in language, concepts of space and time, and other perceptual abilities. The foundation of Piaget’s theory rests on the notion of a schema (mental representations or organized patterns that help us understand our world) and that children experience cognitive growth through reorganizing mental processes. This occurs through the process of assimilation, accommodation, disequilibrium and equilibration. Children process new information from the world around them by matching new information to what they know (assimilation), expanding what they know to process novel information (accommodation), and striving for a balance between assimilation and accommodation (equilibration).

Lev Vygotsky In contrast to many Western theories that view learning as an individual cognitive process, Lev Vygotsky (1978) believed that social and cultural factors shape individuals’ learning and cognitive development. This is the foundation of his sociocultural theory of cognitive development. Vygotsky emphasized the collaborative nature of learning and that social interaction was critical to cognitive development. He believed children learn about and extract meaning from their

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

Negotiating games rules, resolving conflicts that arise during play, and socially interacting with children from different cultural heritages or personalities put children into disequilibrium. These situations provide children with opportunities for cognitive and social growth.

The Cognitive Immaturity Hypothesis Bjorklund and Green’s (1992) cognitive immaturity hypothesis provides an evolutionary explanation for the relationship between children’s biological systems and their ability to process information. As young children have limited attention spans and difficulty in storing, retrieving and processing material, children are more susceptible to interference in memory and other cognitively demanding tasks. Piaget viewed these inabilities as limitations. Bjorklund and Green argue that children’s lack of experience and maturing biological systems are suited to breaks between tasks to help them come to know their world in developmentally appropriate ways. They also argue the nature of the breaks is equally important so that children, especially young children, need to experience radical changes (e.g., outdoor, physical play) between activities in order to efficiently process information or perform well on cognitive tasks. In their view, children’s limited attention spans actually serve an adaptive learning purpose. It helps them process the world in ways that match their abilities and experiences.

Ebbinghaus’ Mass vs. Distributed Practice Herman Ebbinghaus (1913 [1885]) demonstrated the importance of a spacing effect on a person’s ability to learn and recall new material. Ebbinghaus memorized lists of nonsense syllables and recalled them after different time durations. He found that learning

73

material in one session (like cramming for an exam the night before) was less effective than learning the material over several days. This is the basis of massed vs. distributed practice and there is empirical support for its positive effects on learning for children and adults (Alberini, 2013; James, 1901). This discovery has had implications for educational practices in the classroom and the curriculum. Arguments for recess often cite Ebbinghaus’ work on memory and attention.

BENEFITS OF RECESS There is ample empirical evidence to support the benefits of recess for children (Jarrett, 2013; Pellegrini, 2008; Pellegrini and Holmes, 2006; Warreyn et al., 2014). Recess positively connects with children’s school attendance and math and reading achievement (Hillman et al., 2008; London et al., 2015); the development of prosocial skills, social competence and conflict resolution skills (Ginsburg, 2007; London et al., 2015; Pellegrini et al., 2002); children’s physical health and well-being (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), 2010; Jarrett, 2013); and children’s emotional development (Barros et  al., 2009; London et  al., 2015). Although we believe that development simultaneously occurs across multiple domains, in this section we separately discuss the physical, social, cognitive and emotional benefits of play. Finally, recess has the support of several national associations, including the American Pediatric Association (Murray and Ramstetter, 2013) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Jarrett and WaiteStupiansky, 2009).

Physical Today, childhood obesity is both a national and global concern. More American children struggle with obesity compared to past generations

74

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

and there are ethnic group differences in obesity. In the United States, African American and Hispanic children are at a greater risk for obesity than European American and Asian American children (Ogden et  al., 2014). The fact that many urban schools have either eliminated or reduced recess for reasons such as lack of space, concern with bullying and the need for more academic instruction time compounds this issue (Ahmed-Ullah, 2011; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2007). A recent national report on recess reveals that lowerincome children of color who attend large, urban public schools engage in far fewer minutes, if any, of recess compared to similar schools located in different areas (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2007). Outdoor play, especially play during recess time, has an important role in children’s health and physical development. Time spent outdoors positively relates to increased amounts of physical activity in children and this helps reduce weight gain (Parsad and Lewis, 2006). Outdoor play also provides children with sun exposure vital to Vitamin D absorptions and ensures that children receive minimum exposure to indoor air pollutants including mold, lead and asbestos that lead to health problems like asthma (DeBord, Bradley, et  al., 2014; DeBord, Moore, et  al., 2014). Additionally, physical inactivity connects to health issues in children such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, arthritis and poor health status (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Donohue, 2011; Ogden et al., 2014). Outdoor play is a way to help improve children’s health and well-being. Children who are physically active at school tend to be active at home too (Burris and Burris, 2011; Dale et al., 2000). In one study, Lopes et al. (2009) studied the effects of an intervention during recess time on physical activity levels and children’s body mass index (BMI) scores in Portuguese children. Approximately 158 children, ages 6–12 in two elementary schools, participated. The researchers calculated the children’s BMI scores by measuring each child’s height and

weight, and used an actigraph accelerometer to evaluate physical activity levels. The play intervention provided children with play equipment with which they could play freely. Some equipment and structures included ropes, arches and floors painted for games. They found that the intervention increased the children’s physical activity and younger children benefited significantly more than other children. The researchers found that when children have access to play equipment at recess time, they may spend more time doing physical activity. Engaging in vigorous physical play at recess strengthens children’s hearts, lungs and muscles. Spending time outdoors promotes the development of healthy immune systems. Exposure to natural sunlight helps regulate sleep–wake cycles, ensuring that children maintain regular sleep patterns. Children with regular exposure to natural sunlight are less likely to be near-sighted, as sunlight helps keep the eye in focus by maintaining the correct distance between the lens and the retina (American Pediatric Association, 2013). Burris and Burris (2011) explain that outdoor play during recess is also essential for proper bone development. Physical activity during recess creates a renewed blood supply to the brain from activities like running, jumping, kicking or swinging. Physical activity also helps create greater amounts of natural chemicals that connect neurons. As Brown and Vaughn (2009) noted, play is good for your brain and soul. Finally, outdoor play also contributes to the refinement of gross and fine motor skills. Children’s cross-lateral movements (right arm and left leg, left arm and right leg) are important muscle skills that will ensure their later success in reading and writing (Corballis et  al., 2008; Rosa Neto et  al., 2013).

Cognitive Empirical evidence confirms that recess contributes to children’s classroom attention

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

(Ginsburg, 2007), achievement (Bateson, 2005) and cognitive development (WaiteStupiansky and Findly, 2001). Recess provides children with a break from cognitively demanding tasks. These breaks are beneficial to children’s learning because they help children process and store previously learned material without interference (Jarrett, 2013). This is the basis of the cognitive immaturity hypothesis (Bjorklund and Green, 1992). In order to achieve optimal cognitive processing, unstructured interruptions like recess are necessary after periods of concentrated instruction (see also Burris and Burris, 2011). Recess, therefore, makes children more attentive in the classroom – and importantly, any type of activity during recess will benefit cognitive performance afterward (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Pellegrini and Bjorklund, 1997; Pellegrini and Holmes, 2006). Several studies confirm the relationship between recess and attention to classroom tasks. For example, Jarrett et al. (1998) compared elementary school children’s attention to classroom tasks, fidgeting and listlessness on days when they did and did not have recess. They found that children benefitted from recess as reflected in their increased classroom work ethic and less fidgeting. Mahar et al. (2006) worked with a sample of children in grades K to 4 and found that providing children with a daily physical activity break improves children’s attention to classroom tasks. Holmes et al. (2006) reported similar findings in their work with preschool children. They varied the amount of outdoor play time and assessed children’s attention to tasks before and after recess. They found that all children were more attentive to classroom tasks after recess and this was especially true for girls. Other studies support that recess impacts children’s classroom behaviors (Barros et al., 2009; Bogden and Vega-Matos, 2000; Pellegrini et al., 1995). Sattelmair and Ratey (2009) also emphasize the importance of physical activity during recess on students’ academic skills.

75

Physical activity and recovery from physical activity preserves brain function and helps the brain respond to future challenges. For example, Davis and colleagues (2011) found that physical activity like that in active recess play improved executive functioning skills associated with the frontal lobe in obese children. Other studies with children confirm that they are more attentive to classroom tasks after participating in recess (Holmes et  al., 2006; Pellegrini, 2005). Since attention and concentration are higher cognitive functions located in the frontal lobe, it is likely that this relationship holds true for children. Physical activity is associated with positive growth in: perception, intelligence quotient, achievement, verbal tests, math tests, developmental level and academic readiness, and executive control (Sattelmair and Ratey, 2009). Frontal lobe maturation helps aid in healthy cognitive development and the development of self-regulatory and prosocial behaviors (Panksepp et al., 2003). Recess is also associated with positive gains in children’s academic performances (London et  al., 2015; Pellegrini and Bohn, 2005). Studies report that physical activity during recess correlates with reading and math performance (CDCP, 2010; Fedewa and Ahn, 2011). Outdoor recess also helps children practice negotiation and problem-solving skills with peers (Jarrett and Maxwell, 2000). At recess, children constantly confront situations that place them in a position of disequilibrium (Piaget, 1952). Learning how to negotiate and problem-solve helps children restore equilibrium – an ongoing process that leads to cognitive growth (Pellegrini and Holmes, 2006). Recess also helps with children’s concept development (Burris and Burris, 2011). In unstructured play like recess, children are able to test, refine and shape their world concepts. By engaging in some types of outdoor play, like mud play, for example, children can develop their understandings of scientific concepts like mass, volume and the nature of change. Children can learn

76

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

geometric concepts like spatial awareness as they move their bodies through and around different spaces at different speeds (Early Head Start National Resource Center, 2013). Unstructured outdoor play environments allow children the opportunity to develop theories about how things work, while exploring and questioning their environment (DeBord, Bradley et al., 2014). Outdoor play environments, especially those in natural settings, let children follow their curiosity, interests and imagination (Erickson, 2008; Rivkin and Schein, 2014). For example, children might discuss rotting wood, find insects, or pretend a tree stump is a pirate ship. By exploring, children learn to appreciate weather, seasons, plants, insects and wildlife. Children come to realize that everyone is part of the natural world, and learn the importance of respecting nature. Immersion in an outdoor play environment encourages children to ‘tinker’ with their environment, an activity that is beneficial to neural growth (Brown, 2010). Exploration and curiosity ultimately lead to learning and cognitive skills such as problem-solving (Piaget, 1952). Some of the best problemsolvers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab were ‘master tinkerers’ as children (Brown, 2010).

Social Play during recess time is crucial to children’s social development. Olga Jarrett (2013) notes that recess may be some children’s only opportunity for engaging with peers. Although some schools allow children to engage with peers in their classrooms, not all schools do. Additionally, ‘latchkey children’ or children who may return home to any empty house due to working caregiver(s) do not usually have peer interaction after school. Social interactions during recess play may be the only opportunity for some children to share folk culture and make choices (Jarrett, 2013). It also is a setting with little adult supervision where children have

control over their play. Greenfield (2004) suggests that outdoor playtime is valuable because it provides children with flexible and unpredictable learning opportunities. These physical and social challenges provide children opportunities that lead to the development of problem-solving and social competence skills (Sibley and Etneir, 2003). Pellegrini and Bohn (2005) found that recess had a positive impact on children’s adjustment to school. This has implications for children’s social development as well as their academic success. According to Vygotsky (1978), children acquire meaning about their culture through social collaboration. We believe outdoor play at recess provides children these types of opportunities. Beresin’s (2010) work with children attending an ethnically diverse elementary school highlights the playground and recess as a place where children learn, work at and create their own culture. By organizing their own games, children are able to develop and decide their own rules for play – a stark contrast to playing in the classroom, where adults frequently decide game rules (Hughes, 1995; Jarrett, 2013). The unstructured nature of recess presents children with play-based problems such as arguments about game play and rules, disagreements about teams, and disputes about sharing play equipment and space (American Pediatric Association, 2013). Recess is an invaluable experience for children because it helps develop their communication skills. During recess, children will learn negotiation skills, social skills such as cooperation and sharing, and how to solve problems with peers: important lifelong communication skills (Ginsburg, 2007). There is also an interconnectedness between children’s friendships and play. During recess, children have the opportunity to make friends and solidify their friendships, and research confirms that children like to play with their friends. When children play with friends, they experience a sense of belonging, an important need in children and

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

adults as well (DeWall and Bushman, 2011). Having friends helps children feel good about themselves and this leads to other positive outcomes such as confidence (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Recess provides children with opportunities to be a part of a group or team and these types of participation reinforce children’s sense of belonging. Torres (2015) cited similar benefits to children’s social skill development because of recess, adding that communication during recess helps children to develop their oral language skills, ensuring that they become fluent readers and writers. Children can also learn the difference between how and when to use outdoor voices versus how and when to use indoor voices – an important communication skill (Early Head Start National Resource Center, 2013). Burris and Burris (2011) discuss the importance of recess in helping children review their social approaches. Children learn to test social skills so that through trial and error they may learn the best ways to play with and befriend peers. Through this process, children learn to take on different perspectives, learn how to differentiate their own perspective from others’, and learn that their actions can influence others’ thoughts, feelings and behaviors. The recess environment is a prime environment for children to build their repertoire of social strategies because they are able to practice their skills on their own, in contrast to social interactions that often involve adult influence like adult modelling. Finally, Hughes’ (1995) work on four square, a popular game at recess, provides a context for girls to learn about and protect their social group and social status. During play, girls manipulate game rules in order to exert social control over other players to ensure their social group is victorious. In these types of play experiences, children develop cognitive and social skills as they learn their place in their social world and how they can manipulate play to sustain it. During play, these children create rules, sustain relationships and manipulate fellow players to

77

ensure their social group is successful. These types of skills can prepare children for future workplace situations where cooperation and loyalty to one’s colleagues and company are important.

Emotional Recess helps children practice a multitude of emotional skills, including perseverance, self-acceptance, self-discipline and responsibility (Burris and Burris, 2011). For some children, praise and acclamation from peers during recess time is their only source of positive reinforcement. During recess play, children praise each other for their skills, such as running, jumping, swinging and climbing. In unstructured playtime outdoors, children feel comfortable trying to learn a new skill or demonstrating a new skill to their peers (Clements, 2004). Children might show off dancing or singing skills to other children, helping them to develop their selfesteem and concept of self. Some children may have trouble with reading, writing or math but know about plants, animals or weather and receive acclamation from peers about their knowledge during recess (Burris and Burris, 2011). Recess helps children learn to support one another, give guidance to one another and learn to be important to one another. Children can therefore learn how to engage in quality relationships with one another – a crucial skill important to life satisfaction in later years. This connects to children’s need for a sense of belonging. Fulfilling this need is critical and leads to acceptance, confidence and higher self-esteem (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Recess time also helps children adjust and learn to adapt to their school environment (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013). In addition to learning coping skills like perseverance and self-control, children learn how to manage and cope with stress in a socially structured environment (Bjorklund

78

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

and Brown, 1998). Recess may have unique benefits for children with special needs. Some studies report that outdoor play helps children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cope with stress (DeBord, Bradley et  al., 2014). Playing outdoors in open spaces has a calming influence on children with ADHD, especially in comparison to children with ADHD playing organized sports.

WHAT DO CHILDREN LIKE TO DO DURING OUTDOOR RECESS? Gary Fine (1980: 180) introduced the term ‘ecotypic’ to describe the relationship between children’s folklore and the environments in which these activities occur. Physical settings and environments shape the activity that occurs within them. This is also true for playgrounds and children’s lived experiences within these cultural and physical spaces (Greenfield, 2011; Mergen, 1999). Numerous studies explore children’s play preferences during outdoor recess. In their work with preschool children, Holmes and Procaccino (2009) observed preschool children for an entire year using a time sampling, naturalistic approach. They found distinct gender differences in young children’s outdoor play preferences. Boys preferred the cars and swings whereas girls preferred the sandbox. In their work with urban elementary school children, Jarrett et al. (2003) used multiple methods, including interviews and observation, to study urban elementary school children’s recess. They found that children enjoyed chasing, socializing and using playground equipment. Only girls played handclapping games and circle games like Duck, Duck, Goose, while older boys played sports. Although they observed rough-n-tumble play, they observed little fighting. Holmes (2012) also studied urban elementary school children. She observed children

in grades K to 8 during recess for an entire year, noting type of activity and number and sex of playmates. The playground had no equipment with the exception of a portable basketball court, jump ropes, hula hoops and various balls. She found that boys and girls spent most of recess socializing with their peers, though age and sex of child influenced the type of socialization. Primarily older girls spent the majority of their recess period talking and socializing with peers in small groups. Primarily older boys spent their recess engaging in large group sports. Similar to Jarrett et al. (2001), she observed no fighting or bullying. Age, gender and developmental needs also influence children’s outdoor play preferences and it is important that play spaces and equipment reflect children’s needs and interests (Thigpen, 2007). For example, 3-year-old children like playgrounds with small tunnels (where they can play peek-a-boo), rocking toys, gently sloped slides, and safe water and sand play areas. Sand and water areas with shovels and pails can even encourage young children’s development of gross and fine motor skills. Holmes and Procaccino (2009) found that girls gravitated toward the sand box whereas boys preferred more active play with props such as cars. Clements (2004) notes how age shapes the outdoor play preferences of diverse-aged children. They found that preschool-aged children (3–4 years) tend to prefer push toys that appear similar to ‘adult tools’, like toy vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, strollers and shopping carts. Three- and four-year-old children enjoy other outdoor toys like tricycles, bowling sets and hand paddles. Five-year-olds might have slightly different preferences, like Velcro catching mitts, bikes with training wheels and jumping rope. Older children, aged 7–12, prefer to test their physical skills with equipment like inline skates, soccer balls, basketballs, bats and batting tees, footballs and paddle racquets. Changes in play preferences intersect with children’s increasing social, emotional, physical and cognitive development.

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

Other studies explore children’s play preferences in different cultural settings. Bourke and Sarggison (2014) used time sampling and naturalistic observation to record the play preferences of New Zealand children. They found children preferred equipment that afforded them the opportunity to swing, spin and climb. These included roundabout (spinning), the eagle’s nest (climbing) and large-basket swing (swinging). These items were risky because of their physical characteristics. The eagle’s nest is 4 meters high and children can build considerable speed on the roundabout. Other studies confirm that children prefer play equipment that affords them the opportunity for risky play (Sandseter et al., 2017; Staempfli, 2009).

OUTDOOR PLAY IN INFORMAL SETTINGS AND IN TRADITIONAL SOCIETIES A common theme that weaves together the chapters of this volume is the connection between play and learning, and in particular outdoor play. Children come to know and learn about their culture through enculturation, socialization and educational practices. Through observing and participating in cultural routines and practices, children acquire meaning about their everyday experiences, learn skills and abilities, and come to internalize the values of their community (Lancy et al., 2010). In play, children have the opportunity to recreate, reenact and interpret their social worlds. In this way, play serves as a medium for learning. Although our chapter focuses upon outdoor play during school recess, we wanted to acknowledge that play takes place in diverse cultural spaces, some formally associated with school while others might be public or even secret spaces. In traditional communities, play often takes place outdoors in areas near, next to, or apart from adult activities. We situate our discussion using the term

79

‘mother-ground’, which Lancy (1996: 85) introduced based upon his work among the Kpelle of Liberia. The ‘mother-ground’ refers to a cultural space where children are within visible distance of adults and adults can keep a watchful eye on children. Kpelle children draw material for their pretend play activities from their daily, real life experiences. In this way, pretend play is like a narrative of children’s real life experiences. By playing on the ‘mother-ground’ outdoors, children can attentively observe what adults do and then re-enact these activities in their play. Kpelle pretend scripts have no connection to television shows or social media, as does the play of some children raised in industrial societies. Children incorporate what they see adults doing in their play. Therefore, their play scripts include activities such as pounding rice, cooking, weaving, blacksmithing and hunting. For Kpelle children, participation in pretend play helps teach them about their ways of knowing (Lancy, 1996). According to Fine (1999: 229), an ‘ecotypic’ approach highlights the relationship between the physical environment and the children’s play and lore that takes place within it. The notion that settings drive the behaviors that occur within them is a prevalent view in the social sciences. This applies directly to the areas in which children’s play occurs. In his work, Ng’asike (2015) describes the play of Turkana children of Kenya. Turkana children live in a community dependent upon goats and camels supplemented with hunting and gathering. Although children attend school, dry riverbeds also provide play spaces for them. In these areas, children engage in pretend play that focuses upon the daily activities in which the children observe and participate. Unlike the Kpelle, Turkana children engage in pretend play away from adults and adults rarely provide opportunities or play props for them. Much like children in other traditional societies, children attend school and contribute to the family’s well-being

80

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

through work-related activities. Parents view play as an activity in which children can learn social skills, but they do not carve specific play times for them. Parents also believe children actively organize their understanding of their physical and social settings through their interactions within them. Because children contribute to their family’s economy, work and play often entwine for them. At dry riverbeds, children engage in pretend scripts that re-enact their daily activities. These include herding activities, milking, digging wells, transporting water from wells and daily chores. These scripts also creatively incorporate materials children have access to in their environment. For example, children might incorporate dry camel dung, firewood, cooking materials and grain into their play. They also use natural barriers such as riverbeds or trees in their play. Outdoor play provides Turkana children opportunities to learn cultural values, skills and abilities they will need to be successful adults.

CONCLUSION In 1995 Rivkin advocated staunchly that children have outdoor play and learning experiences. Joe Frost (2008), the internationally renowned child advocate for play and playground scholar, suggested that depriving or limiting children’s outdoor play opportunities would impede children’s development across all domains. In this review, we discussed the benefits of outdoor play at recess to children’s physical, cognitive, social and emotional development. During outdoor recess, children develop their fine and gross motor skills, and coordination. This physical activity reduces the risk of obesity and related health problems such as diabetes and asthma. Physical play at recess is good for children’s overall health and well-being. Socially, children learn how to communicate, negotiate, take turns, regulate their behavior and develop social competency with their

peers free from adult intervention. Cognitively, children learn how to problem-solve, expand their language abilities and improve their academic performance. Outdoor recess affords children the opportunity to grow emotionally through enhancing their self-esteem and helping them to acquire industry. Finally, Frost (2008) noted that children’s outdoor play experiences help prepare them acclimate to the intimate and more global settings in which children live. We could not agree more. Recess is critical for children’s development and we hope school systems retain recess as part of their curriculum.

REFERENCEs Adams, C. (2011) ‘Recess makes kids smarter’. Instructor, 120 (5): 55–9. Ahmed-Ullah, N. (2011). ‘Schools face new challenge: Return of recess’. Chicago Trib­ une: October 25. Alberini, C. (2013) Memory Reconsolidation. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) ‘Policy statement: The crucial role of recess in school’. Pediatrics, 131 (1): 183–8. American Association for the Child’s Right to Play (2004) Recess News. Retrieved from www.ipausa.org/recess.html. Barros, R., Silver, E. and Stein, R. (2009) ‘School recess and group classroom behavior’. Pedi­ atrics, 123: 431–6. Bateson, P. (2005) ‘The role of play in the evolution of great apes and humans’. In A. Pellegrini and P. Smith (eds), The Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 13–26. Baumeister, R. and Leary, M. (1995) ‘The need to belong: Desire of interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation’. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3): 497–529. Beresin, A. (2010) Recess Battles: Playing, Fighting, and Storytelling. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press. Bjorklund, D.F. and Brown, R.D. (1998) ‘Physical play and cognitive development: Integrating

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

activity, cognition, and education’. Child Devel­ op­ment, 69: 604–6. Bjorklund, D. and Green, B. (1992) ‘The adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity’. Ameri­ can Psychologist, 47 (1): 46–54. Blaes, A., Ridgers, N., Aucouturier, J., Van Praagh, E., Berthoin, S. and Baguet, G. (2013) ‘Effects of playground marking intervention on school recess physical activity in French Children’. Preventive Medicine, 57 (5): 580–4. Blatchford, P. and Sumpner, C. (1998) ‘What do we know about breaktime? Results from a National Survey of Breaktime and Lunchtime in primary and secondary schools’. Brit­ ish Educational Research Journal, 24(1): 79–94. Bogden, J.F. and Vega-Matos, C.A. (2000) ‘Part I: Physical activity, healthy eating, and tobacco-use prevention’. In Fit, Healthy, and Ready to Learn: A School Health Policy Guide. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education. Borden, M.E. (1997) ‘What are children learning when they play?’ In Smart Start: The Parents’ Guide to Preschool Education. Facts On File, Inc. Bourke, T. and Sargisson, R. (2014) ‘A behavioral investigation of preference in a newly designed New Zealand playground’. Ameri­ can Journal of Play, 6 (3): 370–91. Brown, S. (2010) ‘Brain research’. In The Wisdom of Play: How Children Learn to Make Sense of the World. New York: Community Playthings. (http://elf2.library.ca.gov/ pdf/WisdomOfPlay.pdf) Brown, S., and Vaughn, C. (2010) Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul. New York, NY: Avery/The Penguin Group. Burris, K. and Burris, L. (2011) ‘Outdoor play and learning: Policy and practice’. Interna­ tional Journal of Education Policy and Lead­ ership, 6 (8): 1–12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) (2010) The Association Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Perfor­ mance. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. Chang, P. (2015) ‘Understanding Taiwanese children’s play through constructing and

81

reconstructing: A prospective vision’. In J. Roopnarine, M. Patte, J. Johnson and D. Kuschner (eds), International Perspectives on Children’s Play. Berkshire: Open University Press/McGraw–Hill. pp. 119–33. Clements, R. (2004) ‘An investigation of the status of outdoor play’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5 (1): 68–80. Corballis, M., Hattie, J. and Fletcher, R. (2008) ‘Handedness and intellectual achievement: An even-handed look’. Neuropsychologia, 46 (1): 374–8. Dagli, Y.U. (2012) ‘Recess and reading achievement of early childhood students in public schools’. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20 (10): 1–21. Dale, D., Corbin, C. and Dale, K. (2000) ‘Restricting opportunities to be active during school time: Do children compensate by increasing physical activity levels after school’? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3): 240–48. Davis, C.L., Tomporowski, P.D., McDowell, J.E., Austin, B.P., Miller, P.H., Yanasak, N.E., Allison, J.D. and Naglieri, J.A. (2011) ‘Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: A randomized, controlled trial’. Health Psychology, 30 (1): 91–8. DeBord, K., Bradley, L. and Driscoll, L. (2014) ‘At your doorstep: A family fact sheet on outdoor play and learning’. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (www.ces. ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/FCS-530W-WebNov30.pdf). DeBord, K., Moore, R., Hestenes, L., Cosco, N. and McGinnis, J. (2014) ‘Making the most of outdoor time with preschool children’. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/FCS507. pdf). DeWall, C. and Bushman, B. (2011) ‘Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter’. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 20 (4): 256–60. Dill, A.K., Morgan, H.N. and Rotthoff, K.W. (2011) ‘Recess, physical education, and elementary school student outcomes’. Econom­ ics of Education Review, 30: 889–900. Dockett, S. and Meckley, A. (2007) ‘What young children say about play at school: United States and Australian comparison’. In

82

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

D. Sluss and O. Jarrett (eds), Investigating Play in the 21st Century. Play and Culture Studies, Vol. 7. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. pp. 88–113. Donohue, M. (2011) ‘Give kids a break: The importance of recess in childhood education’. The Loyola University Chicago Childlaw and Education Institute Forum, 2011. Early Head Start National Resource Center (2013) ‘Supporting outdoor play and exploration for infants and toddlers’. http://eclkc. ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/ehsnrc/docs/ ehs-ta-paper-14-outdoor-play.pdf. Ebbinghaus, H. (1913 [1885]) Memory: A Con­ tribution to Experimental Psychology (trans. H. Ruger and C. Bussenius). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Erickson, M.F. (2008) ‘The children and nature network: Ensuring that all children can spend quality time outdoors’, Young Children on the Web, January. www.naeyc. org/yc/pastissues/ 2008/january. Family Kids and Youth/Research Now (2010) Playreport: International Summary of Research Results. www.fairplayforchildren. org/pdf/1280152791pdf. Faulkner, G., Mitra, R., Buliung, R., Fusco, C. and Stone, M. (2015) ‘Children’s outdoor playtime, physical activity, and parental perceptions of the neighbourhood environment’. International Journal of Play, 4 (1): 84–97. Fedewa, A. and Ahn, S. (2011) ‘The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on children’s achievement and cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis’. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82 (3): 521–35. Fine, G. (1980) ‘Children’s folklore: How it spreads’. Center for Southern Folklore Maga­ zine. pp. 3, 9. Fine, G. (1999) ‘Methodological problems of collecting folklore from children’. In B. Sutton-Smith, J. Mechling, T. Johnson and F. McMahon (eds), Children’s Folklore: A Source Book. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. pp. 121–40. Frost, J. (2008) ‘What’s wrong with America’s playgrounds and how to fix them: An interview with Joe L. Frost’. American Journal of Play, 1 (2): 139–56. Ginsburg, K.R. (2007) ‘The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and

maintaining strong parent–child bonds’. Pediatrics, 119: 182–91. Gray, P. (2011) ‘The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents’. American Journal of Play, 3: 443–63. Greenfield, C. (2004) ‘Can run, play on bikes, jump the zoom slide, and play on the swings: Exploring the value of outdoor play’. Austral­ ian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (2): 1–5. Greenfield, C. (2011) Outside is Where We Need to Be, 2nd ed. Auckland, NZ: Manukau Institute of Technology. Hillman, C.H., Erickson, K.I. and Kramer, A.F. (2008) ‘Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition’. Science and Society, 9: 58–65. Holmes, R. (2012) ‘The outdoor recess activities of children at an urban school: Longitudinal and intraperiod patterns’. American Journal of Play, 4 (3): 327–51. Holmes, R., Pellegrini, A. and Schmidt, S. (2006) ‘The effects of different recess timing regimens on preschoolers’ classroom attention’. Early Child Development and Care, 176 (7): 735–43. Holmes, R. and Procaccino, J. (2009) ‘Preschool children’s outdoor play preferences’. Early Child Development and Care, 179 (8): 1103–12. Hughes, L. (1995) ‘Children’s games and gaming’. In B. Sutton-Smith, J. Mechling, T. Johnson and F. McMahon (eds), Children’s Folklore: A Source Book. New York: Routledge. pp. 93–120. James, W. (1901) Talks to Teachers on Psychol­ ogy: And to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals. New York: Holt. Jarrett, O. (2002) ‘Recess in elementary school. What does the research say?’ ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education; July 1, 2002. www. eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED466331.pdf. Jarrett, O. (2013) ‘A research-based case for recess’. www.usplaycoalition.clemson.edu. pp. 1–6. Jarrett, O., Farokhi, B., Young, C. and Davies, G. (2001) ‘Boys and girls at play: Recess at a southern urban elementary school’. In Stuart Reifel (ed.), Theory in Context and Out. Play and Culture Studies, Vol. 3. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. pp. 147–70. Jarrett, O. S. and Maxwell, D. (2000) ‘What research says about the need for recess’. In

Outdoor Play in Recess Time

R. Clements (ed.), Elementary School Recess: Selected Readings, Games, and Activities for Teachers and Parents. Lake Charles, LA: American Press. pp. 12–23. Jarrett, O., Maxwell, D., Dickerson, C., Hoge, P., Davies, G. and Yetley, A. (1998) ‘The impact of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2): 121–6. Jarrett, O. and Waite-Stupiansky, S. (2009) Recess – It’s Indispensable! www.naeyc.org /files/yc/file/200909/On%20Our%20 Minds%20909.pdf. Lancy, D. (1996) Playing On the Mother Ground: Cultural Routines for Children’s Development. New York: The Guilford Press. Lancy, D., Bock, J. and Gaskins, S. (2010) The Anthropology of Learning in Childhood. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Lee, S.M., Burgeson, C.R., Fulton, J.E. and Spain, C.G. (2007) ‘Physical education and physical activity: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006’. Journal of School Health, 77: 435–63. London, R., Westrich, L., Stokes-Guinan, K. and McLaughlin, M. (2015) ‘Playing fair: The contribution of high-functioning recess to overall school climate in low-income elementary schools’. Journal of School Health, 85 (1): 53–60. Lopes, L., Lopes, V. and Pereira, B. (2009) ‘Physical activity levels in normal weight and overweight children: An intervention study during an elementary school recess’. Interna­ tional Electronic Journal of Health Education, 12: 175–84. Mahar, M.T., Murphy, S.K., Rowe, D.A., Golden, J., Shields, A.T. and Raedeke, T.D. (2006) ‘Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior’. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38 (12): 2086–94. McMurrer, J. (2007) Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Mergen, B. (1999) ‘Children’s lore in school and playgrounds’. In B. Sutton-Smith, J. Mechling, T.W. Johnson and F.W. McMahon (eds), Children’s Folklore: A Source Book. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. pp. 229–50.

83

Murray, R. and Ramstetter, C. (2013) ‘The crucial role of recess in schools’. Pediatrics, 131 (1): 183–8. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2014) ‘The relationship between bullying and suicide: What we know and what it means for schools’. Centers for Disease Control. www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ pdf/bullying-suicide-translation-final-a.pdf. Ng’asike, J. (2015) ‘Take me to the (dry) river: Children’s play in Turkana pastoralist communities of Kenya’. In J. Roopnarine, M. Patte, J. Johnson and D. Kuschner (eds), International Perspectives on Children’s Play. Maidenhead: Open University Press/ McGraw–Hill. pp. 103–16. Ogden, C., Carroll, M. and Flegal, K. (2014) ‘Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012’. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311 (8): 806–14. Panksepp, J., Burgdorf, J., Turner, C. and Gordon, N. (2003) ‘Modeling ADHD-type arousal with unilateral frontal cortex damage in rats and beneficial effects of play therapy’. Brain and Cognition, 52 (1): 97–105. Parsad, B. and Lewis, L. (2006) ‘Calories in, calories out: Food and exercise in public elementary schools, 2005’. US Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics. Patte, M.M. (2009) ‘The state of recess in Pennsylvania elementary schools: A continuing tradition or a distant memory?’ In Transac­ tions at Play. Play and Culture Studies, Vol. 9. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. pp. 147–65. Pellegrini, A. (2005) Recess: Its Role in Education and Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pellegrini, A. (2008) ‘The recess debate: A disjuncture between educational theory and scientific research’. American Journal of Play, 1 (2): 181–90. Pellegrini, A. and Bjorklund, D. (1997) ‘The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance’. Educational Psychologist, 37: 35–40. Pellegrini, A. and Bohn, C.M. (2005) ‘The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment’. Educational Researcher, 34 (1): 13–19. Pellegrini, A. and Bohn-Gettler, C. (2013) ‘The benefits of recess in primary school’. Scholar­ pedia, 8 (2): 30448.

84

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Pellegrini, A. and Holmes, R. (2006) ‘The role of recess in primary schools’. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff and K. Hirsch-Pasek (eds), Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and SocioEmotional Growth. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 36–56. Pellegrini, A., Huberty, P. and Jones, I. (1995) ‘The effects of recess timing on children’s playground and classroom behaviors’. American Educational Research Journal, 32: 845–864. Pellegrini, A., Kato, K., Blatchford, P. and Baines, E. (2002) ‘A short-term longitudinal study of children’s playground games across the first year of school: Implications for social competence and adjustment to school’. American Education Research Journal, 39: 991–1015. Piaget, J. (1936) Origins of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1945) Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. London: Heinemann. Piaget, J. (1952) The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York, NY: International Universities Press. Piaget, J. (1973) Main Trends in Psychology. London: George Allen and Unwin. Rivkin, M.S. (1995) The Great Outdoors: Restoring Children’s Right to Play Outside. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Rivkin, M.S. and Schein, D. (2014) The Great Outdoors: Advocating for Natural Spaces for Young Children. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2007) Recess Rules, Why the undervalued playtime may be America’s best investment for healthy kids and healthy schools. www.rwjf.org/files/ research/sports4kidsrecessreport.pdf. Rosa Neto, F., Ferrazoli Camargo Xavier, R., Marília dos Santos, A.P., Nunes Amaro, K., Florêncio, R. and Schilling Poeta, L. (2013) ‘Cross-dominance and reading and writing outcomes in school-aged children’. Revista CEFAC, 15 (4): 864–71. Sandseter, E.B.H., Little, H., Ball, D., Eager, D. and Brussoni, M. (2017) ‘Risk and safety in outdoor play’. In T. Waller, E. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E.B.H. Sandseter, L. Lee-Hammond, K. Lekies and

S. Wyver (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning. London: Sage. Sattelmair, J. and Ratey, J.J. (2009) ‘Physically active play and cognition: An academic matter?’ American Journal of Play, 1 (3): 365–74. Sibley, B. and Etneir, J. (2003) ‘The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children’. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15: 243–56. Singer, D., Golinkoff, R. and Hirsch-Pasek, K. (2006) Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth. New York: Oxford University Press. Smokowski, P. and Kopasz, K. (2005) ‘Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies’. Children and Schools, 27 (2): 101–10. Staempfli, M. (2009) ‘Reintroducing adventure into children’s outdoor play environments’. Environment and Behavior, 41(2): 268–80. Sutton-Smith, B. (2001) The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thigpen, B. (2007) ‘Outdoor play: Combating sedentary lifestyles’. Zero to Three, September 2007. http://main.zerotothree.org/s ite/DocServer/outdoorplay_thigpen. pdf?docID=4881. Torres, M.B. (2015) ‘The silent playground: Why students need daily recess’. Teachers. net Gazette, 12 (6). http://gazette.teachers. net/gazette/wordpress/mayrabazan-torres/ the-silent-playground/. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Devel­ opment of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waite-Stupiansky, S. and Findlay, M. (2001) ‘The fourth R: Recess and its link to learning’. The Educational Forum, 66: 16–25. Warreyn, P., Van Der Paelt, S. and Roeyers, H. (2014) ‘Social-communicative abilities as treatment goals for preschool children with autism spectrum disorder: The importance of imitation, joint attention, and play’. Develop­ mental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56: 712–16.

5 Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development Shirley Wyver

INTRODUCTION There is no shortage of claims about the importance of play for children’s cognitive development. In many ways, the claims have become so familiar, and many practitioners/ policy-makers have become so dependent on these claims, that a challenge to this ‘truth’ can almost be seen as letting the team down. A range of researchers have already documented and critiqued existing research on play and cognition (Bergen, 2002; Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, Dore, Smith, & Palmquist, 2012; Meyers & Berk, 2014; Pellegrini & Holmes, 2006). Their reviews have served an important purpose in improving research quality, underscoring the need for multisite replication, sharpening theoretical positioning and potentially leading to a better understanding of the complexity of the relationships between play and cognition. This chapter seeks to complement and extend these critical reviews.

The challenge for this chapter is to make the case that outdoor play offers something unique that either cannot be achieved or is more difficult to achieve in indoor play. To argue for the importance of outdoor play, I use examples of the relationship between play and physical activity as well as outdoor exploration and research on situated cognition. I also draw on work from researchers such as Bjorklund and Beers (2016), who argue that an extended period of immaturity is a feature of human development and that play is a central part of immaturity. Children are not less developed adults. Their learning is different to adult learning and has a stronger emphasis on both acquisition of knowledge and cognitive change through play. There are many studies in which researchers have examined the relationship of play and cognition. These include early studies involving Piagetian conservation tasks (Golomb & Cornelius, 1977) through to studies of syllogistic reasoning (Dias & Harris, 1988). There are also studies examining the relationship of

86

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

play to social-cognitive areas such as theory of mind (Lillard, 1998; Schwebel, Rosen, & Singer, 1999). Rather than catalogue these studies, the main focus of this chapter will be on Executive Function (EF). Although difficult to define, many definitions include reference to both the skill and the underlying neurological development. ‘As neurocognitive skills, EF skills are attentional skills, or ways of using attention, that depend on specific neural circuits, in this case involving regions in prefrontal cortex and other areas. These attentional skills serve to modulate attention in the service of a goal – flexibly, over time, and selectively – and consequently, they serve to control our behavior in corresponding ways’ (Zelazo, 2015, p. 56). Play that supports the development of EF is changing higher-order cognitive processes and is likely to be achieved through active play that involves ambiguity, decision-making, social engagement, and both mind and body involvement.

CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTIES IN EXAMINATION OF PLAY AND COGNITION Many arguments about play and cognition are based on simple cause-and-effect models of development. It is important to move away from these models and start to consider complex relationships (Wyver & Spence, 1999). Researchers in outdoor play have provided some pieces of the puzzle that demonstrate the importance of play and its contexts in facilitating a range of mental and physical health benefits that are known to be directly associated with cognition. The conceptual problems to be considered in any discussion of play and cognition are substantial. Adding outdoor to the mix escalates the complexity of these problems. An important advancement in future research is to be much clearer with the terminology that is used. For example, when play is reported in

research it is often difficult to identify what the researcher used as the defining features. This leads to difficulties for researchers attempting to review the current state of knowledge (e.g., Lillard, Hopkins, Dore, Palmquist, Lerner, & Smith, 2013). As will be discussed, it is currently challenging to disentangle play from other behaviours such as unstructured outdoor physical activity. Likewise, some investigations of the relationship of play to cognitive outcomes involve experimentally contrived forms of play that are highly adult-directed and lack ecological validity.

HISTORICALLY RECENT CHANGES IN PLAY, PERCEPTION AND COGNITION The decline in both the quality and quantity of play was not planned and has not been systematically documented. Indeed, many of the difficulties that are now apparent have come from possibly well intended efforts to reduce injuries and create more fun as perceived by adults unfamiliar with the benefits of play. Although prospective documentation of the decline in play does not exist, there are numerous compelling accounts from across the world to demonstrate these changes both in educational contexts (Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Singer, 2006) and urban environments (Karsten, 2005; Wyver, Tranter, Bundy, & Naughton, 2012). In the following sections I review three areas of evidence where developmental changes of relevance to cognition have been reported to occur. Most importantly, these provide a context for understanding broad changes in cognitive development at a population level. It is also possible to speculate that the correspondence with changes in opportunities for play is more than coincidental.

Visual Perception (Myopia) A clear indication that changed conditions have an influence on perceptual systems

Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development

comes from current research on myopia (short sightedness). The Sydney Myopia Study is a large multischool stratified study involving children in Years 1 and 7. It was designed to examine reasons for the increase in prevalence of myopia (Ojaimi et al., 2005). Parents were screened for refractive errors to enable the researchers to statistically control for genetic contributions to children’s myopia. With genetic factors controlled, the strongest predictor was time spent outdoors (Rose et  al., 2008). In other words, time spent outdoors seemed to protect against myopia. The researchers examined other environmental factors often suspected of contributing to myopia, such as near work, but these factors did not have the level of impact of outdoor time. Indeed, outdoor time was considered to have a protective role for children involved in high levels of close work (e.g., reading, handiwork). Consideration was also given to whether sport, which often occurs outdoors, may be the critical factor. Indoor sport was not found to have a relationship to refractive error, indicating that the outdoor environment is important. Based on the results of the Sydney Myopia Study, which has found a clear benefit of outdoors on the development of a perceptual system, it seems likely that there may be similar processes occurring in the development of other physiological structures underpinning perceptual-cognitive development.

Creativity Numerous studies have found associations between pretend play and measures of creativity (including measures of divergent thinking) (Russ, Robins, & Christiano, 1999; Wyver & Spence, 1999). An examination of the norming data of each version of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking – Figural (TTCT-F) since 1966 has been conducted (Kim, 2011). Kim examined the data from the six revisions to the TTCT-F, which included test scores from 272,599 children

87

and adolescents from Kindergarten to Year 12 and adults. Data collection for each phase was geographically balanced across the United States, indicating a representative sample in terms of region, although no data were available on participant socioeconomic status. One of the major finding is that there has been an apparent decline in children’s creativity since 1990. Kim argues that this change could be at least partly due to a change in testing at schools, with a focus on a narrow range of academic abilities. The recent focus on a limited range of academic abilities has led schools to reduce emphasis on creative components of the curriculum and reduced opportunities for recess play (Bodrova, 2008; Golinkoff et  al., 2006; Medellin, 2015; Murray et al., 2013).

Intelligence – Flynn Effect A significant rise in standardized intelligence scores was documented between 1932 and 1978 (Flynn, 1984) and became widely known as the Flynn Effect. Interpretation of the evidence of a rise in intelligence based on test scores is controversial (Rodgers, 1998) and has triggered numerous debates about what the findings mean for intelligence testing and understanding of intelligence (Sternberg, 2010). The rise in intelligence scores has largely been attributed to improvements in schooling generally and greater access to schooling in particular (Baker et  al., 2015). Although intelligence scores continued to be on an upward trajectory throughout much of the latter part of the twentieth century, studies have shown that scores started to decline from around the 1990s (Sundet, Barlaug, & Torjussen, 2004; Teasdale & Owen, 2005, 2008). If the Flynn Effect does reflect actual changes in intelligence rather than being an artefact of testing (Kaufman, 2010), then it is important to note that declines in intelligence scores seem to correspond to times when a shift away from outdoor play both within and outside of

88

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

schools as well as an increase in passive entertainment through technologies has been observed (Ginsburg, 2007; Golinkoff et  al., 2006).

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION (EF) In the previous sections of this chapter it has been established that there have been declines in opportunities for play and changes in perceptual-cognitive processes that are possibly linked with those changes. In this section, I examine Executive Function. EF has become perhaps the most important area of investigation in cognitive development and it is known to have a wide range of associations to other areas of development, often acting as a stronger predictor than IQ (Moriguchi, Chevalier, & Zelazo, 2016). It has an important role in understanding atypical development (Vanegas & Davidson, 2015; Woltering, Lishak, Hodgson, Granic, & Zelazo, 2016) and school outcomes (as discussed below). EF has been associated with quality of life outcomes such as criminal activity and drug use (Moffitt et  al., 2011), as well as health outcomes such as obesity (Verbeken, Braet, Goossens, & van der Oord, 2013). Collectively, research on EF seems to provide the strongest evidence for an important role for play in cognitive development. In children, EF has been associated with academic performance and school adjustment (Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer, 2008). This is because EF involves abilities such as planning, working memory, changing strategy and response inhibition. In a classroom context, typical or better EF development plays a role in children’s control of their ability to listen to instructions, complete allocated work and use flexibility in their approach to work (e.g., if one strategy no longer works, a new strategy will be adopted). EF skills are not only associated with play but are enhanced by physical activity.

EF is known to be highly malleable in the early years. Optimistically, this means that when given the right opportunities, EF development will flourish. Unfortunately, it also means that situations of disadvantage, such as poverty, have a negative impact on EF (Blair, 2016) and it is increasingly recognized that children who perhaps need these skills the most to cope with environmental adversity are the ones who will be most disadvantaged. EF training studies have shown some success (Blair, 2016), but training in its current form is expensive and unlikely to be available to children in disadvantage. Researchers such as Diamond and Lee (2011) argue that EFs are better promoted through experiences that indirectly target these skills. Changing outdoor playground conditions to enhance the quality of play is a good example of an indirect approach. It can be low cost (Bundy et  al., 2011) and may provide the best universal ‘intervention’ to promote EF development. Providing improved opportunities for outdoor play is consistent with general moves to promote the wellbeing of children in poverty through improving play provisions (Milteer et al., 2012) rather than being a costly add-on intervention that has a single purpose of promoting cognition.

Hot and Cool Executive Functions: Predictors of Different Types of School Adjustment Although there are core EF features (Willoughby, Wirth, & Blair, 2011), there are also clear differences in the abilities tapped by EF tasks. An important distinction is between the hot and cool tasks. Most often, research with children has examined ‘cool’ EF. The main difference between hot and cool tasks is that the cool tasks do not involve an affective component. Examples of cool tasks are recalling numbers in reverse order or observing when children adjust their responses when told the rules of a game have

Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development

changed. Hot tasks involve an affective component, usually requiring inhibition of a prepotent response, such as not peeking when a present is being wrapped or unwrapped behind the child’s back. Hot and cool EFs are associated with different areas of the prefrontal cortex (Zelazo & Müller, 2010) and, importantly, relate to different school outcomes. Performance on cool tasks is a predictor of academic performance and performance on hot tasks is a predictor of behavioural adjustment (Willoughby et al., 2011). In addition to the hot and cool distinctions, there are numerous EF domains that are both independent and interrelated (Anderson, 2002). The three most frequently discussed are: • Inhibitory control (i.e., inhibiting a prepotent response in order to achieve a reward or other outcome, e.g., waiting until someone has finished talking before speaking, rather than interrupting). In early childhood, much of the research on self-regulation and play (Berk, Mann, & Ogan, 2006) should be included in any discussion of inhibitory control and play as both areas of research are tapping similar or identical abilities. • Working memory (maintaining and manipulating information mentally, such as recalling a list of numbers in reverse order). • Shifting (e.g., changing strategies when a previously successful rule no longer applies).

The skills underpinning each of the EF tasks have a different developmental sequence. Although there are developmental changes in all three types from infancy through to adolescence, the most significant development in the preschool period occurs in inhibitory control, whereas the early school years (ages 5–7) are more important for the development of working memory and shifting (Best, Miller, & Jones, 2009; Zelazo & Müller, 2010). Development of EF is known to be influenced by environmental factors that support physical well-being as well as social experiences that require children to modify

89

their behaviours (e.g. waiting to play with a toy rather than taking it from another child).

Play and Physical Activity When observing children outdoors, play and physical activity are almost impossible to separate. Nonetheless, these are separable constructs and make different contributions to children’s development. Most physical activity of young children occurs in play contexts, although high percentages of sedentary time and very light intensity physical activity are also found to occur during play (Brown et al., 2009; Wyver, Tranter, Sandseter, et al., 2012). Concerns in scholarly publications (Pontifex et al., 2011) and the popular press (Reynolds, 2012) indicate that recent decreases in daily physical activity may have a significant negative impact on the basic cognitive processes of a large proportion of the population. Ironically, children with poor learning performance often incur greater time in classroomtype activities. This situation is further compounded by educational policies to reduce outdoor time for children in most Western countries. Although it may seem counterintuitive that children can learn more by spending less time in structured learning activities, accumulating evidence indicates that this is the case (Pellegrini & Holmes, 2006; Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010).

Physical Activity and Executive Function A recent review of evidence has shown a relationship between physical activity and EF during infancy and childhood (Best, 2010). Strong relationships are generally found between regular physical activity and EF (Hillman et  al., 2008). Recent advances in neuroimaging and a range of measures of physical activity have enabled investigation of the relationship between aerobic exercise and

90

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

cognition. Although there is now compelling evidence of a relationship between adult aerobic exercise and cognition, there are fewer studies on children (almost none on very young children) and some mixed findings (Tomporowski, Naglieri, & Lambourne, 2012). Research on physical activity and EF typically has an exercise focus and divides activity into acute and chronic. Acute refers to short bouts of exercise and chronic refers to exercise that occurs over an extended period, such as climbing trees most days during play. Although at this stage most of the research involves exercise, much of which is directed by the researcher, it is physiologically similar to play in the sense that it involves a range of levels of physical activity (Engelen et al., 2013), even though it lacks essential features of play. The exercise evidence and interpretations of the evidence can be applied to outdoor play contexts, at least as a placeholder until play evidence is available. Best (2010) suggests at least three pathways from physical activity to EF: ‘(1) the cognitive demands inherent in the structure of goal-directed and engaging exercise, (2) the cognitive engagement required to execute complex motor movements, and (3) the physiological changes in the brain induced by aerobic exercise’ (p. 339). Each of these can be considered in the context of play. The first is seen in self-regulatory actions (discussed in the next section) and the demands of negotiating within groups. The second is most likely to occur in play contexts that allow children to engage in risk-taking. In Sandseter’s study of risky play, for example, children identified activities such as tree climbing, jumping from swings at speed and fencing with sticks (Sandseter, 2010), all of which require attention to motor movements especially as the children in this study expressed an understanding of risk and potential injury related to their actions. Third, in terms of physiological changes, it is unlikely to matter if the ‘aerobic exercise’ is accumulated through structured activities or through play.

Play and Executive Function The research discussed so far has come from psychology and neuroscience. Interestingly, similar findings, described in different terms, have been found by early childhood researchers. The relationship between play and cognition is particularly relevant in early childhood. The research draws on Vygotskian theory, which emphasises the centrality of play in young children’s cognitive development. Recently, two small-scale studies demonstrated a relationship between play and self-regulation in preschoolers (Cemore & Herwig, 2005; Elias & Berk, 2002). Although these early childhood play researchers have not explicitly tested EFs, the self-regulatory mechanisms they claim are fostered as a result of the increased sense of control children achieve during pretend play, are essentially the same as inhibitory control and could be described as hot EFs due to the affective component. For example, Cemore and Herwig used a ‘delay of gratification’ task which involved children inhibiting the desire to ring a bell so they could receive a treat. A preschool intervention study found higher EF scores of children in a play programme based on Vygotskian principles when compared to a group receiving a school district designed curriculum which had a literacy focus (Diamond & Lee, 2011). The study found the play-based programme to lead to more improvements in EF scores than the standard curriculum.

Low Levels of Physical Activity and Inadequate Space in Early Childhood Settings Given the link between EF and physical activity, it is helpful to consider whether children’s environments are supporting physical engagement. Researchers have found preschool children’s behaviour in US childcare to be mainly sedentary and some researchers have described many childcare centres as

Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development

91

obesogenic environments (Ward et al., 2008). Even in countries such as Australia, where childcare settings have a strong focus on play, it is not necessarily physically active outdoor play (Sugiyama, Okely, Masters, & Moore, 2010). Through factors such as extreme concerns about safety (Wyver et al., 2010) and regulatory environments that permit small outdoor spaces with equipment lacking challenge (Little & Wyver, 2008) children are not offered the opportunities for the full range of free play likely to be important for EF development. Many early childhood contexts claim to be sites in which school readiness is achieved, yet may not be aware that efforts to support pre-academic skills are being stymied by low levels of physical activity.

days for histological examination of their brains (Bell, Pellis, & Kolb, 2010). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the merits and problems of animal models for human research. The key point is that the conditions under which rodents are studied are often laboratory-based and involve contexts that would be considered extreme ­deprivation in humans (e.g., no exposure to peers at any point during the lifetime). Research with species such as rats may be considered useful in providing evidence of critical periods for exposure to play in the development of the mammalian brain (e.g., see Vanderschuren & Trezza, 2014), but this research is difficult to directly translate into considerations of the provisions for children’s play.

From Research Findings to Policy and Practice

SITUATED COGNITION

Extrapolating research to practice can be trickier than it first appears. As with much of the ‘brain research’ that has become embedded in evidence bases for early education policy, research on play can often be traced to studies involving nonhuman species, sometimes other primates and sometimes rats. Clearly, there are strong similarities between human and nonhuman species. It is typical for mammals to engage in play, but the play can be quite different. For example, odour and sniffing a play partner has a strong role in elicitation of play in some rodents (Wilson & Kleiman, 1974) but is not a common feature of human play. A recent article advocating for outdoor play to promote the type of brain development underlying EF relied exclusively on research on nonhuman species (Hamilton, 2014). Typical research from one of the authors cited involves randomly assigning newborn rats to conditions where they have exposure to a single or multiple peers to stimulate play and conditions in which they are reared without peer exposure. Rats were euthanized at 60

Western education systems generally focus on individual performance and the study of children’s cognition (within and outside of play) has mostly worked in harmony with this approach with emphasis on individual scores and performance. The Western concept of cognition, particularly as it relates to schooling and other achievements, is that it is something that resides within the individual and is independent of context. The central idea is that a context can provide the structures to support cognitive development, but the cognition that develops becomes decontextualized. Many researchers, including Vygotskians (see Chapter 1, this volume) and Gibsonians (see Chapter 2, this volume) consider the social and/or physical context to be important. More generally, the approach known as situated cognition emphasizes the role of other people and artefacts. For example, somebody may have the capacity to remember a list of grocery items, but knows their partner has remembered it or the list has been written down. Rather than remembering the list which is stored elsewhere, the most

92

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

likely option is to keep this cognitive space available for other tasks. Heersmink asks: ‘Why create an expensive internal representation of the world, when you can use the world itself as a model? … Why create an expensive external representation of the world, when you can use the world itself to interact with and use it to facilitate your cognitive tasks?’ (2013, p. 479). In outdoor play, children use peers and natural features to reduce cognitive effort. In my research on loose parts play (see Chapter 30, this volume), children use repurposed objects with no obvious play value to create important components of their play. Construction of a pirate ship, for example, with allocation of characters reduces the need to remember narrative details. Likewise, a study of outdoor play in nature found children to use natural structures such as a muddy area to create an extended narrative about a swamp monster with 18 heads (Waller, 2007). In this example, the muddy area quite likely provided a reminder cue as well as supporting the development of shared ideas amongst the children. Interestingly, the children transferred the swamp monster story to their classroom but used an existing artefact within the classroom (imaginative play area) to provide a new spatial context. In these examples, artefacts and shared allocation of generation and maintenance of the story allows children to remember more than could be possible with acontextual abstract information. Cognition in this sense goes beyond the individual or even beyond the people within the context. The examples given are from a study that was purely qualitative (Waller, 2007) and qualitative observations nested within a large quantitative study (Bundy et al., 2011), neither of which were designed to be analysed in terms of situated cognition but both of which have provided rich data that can be interpreted from multiple perspectives. It is difficult for this type of research to meet some evidence requirements (see Chapter 30, this volume), it is time-consuming and requires skilled interpretation. It fails to have

the current ‘scientism’ (Macvarish, Lee, & Lowe, 2014) appeal of images of changes in brain structure or growth (regardless of species), yet it is from this type of work that knowledge is most likely to be advanced about the role of play in redistributing the burdens of some cognitive tasks, such as memory load that exceeds capacity, in order to allow for higher-level thinking.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS There is a danger that research on play and cognition will lead to impoverished experiences for young children. In health research, it has been noted that the current urgency to increase physical activity through outdoor play may have a negative impact on the range of play experiences available to children (Alexander, Frohlich, & Fusco, 2014). The same problem arises if play is viewed as having value in the service of cognition rather than value in its own right. As Bergen (2013) recently noted in response to a review of pretend play and cognition, ‘one is struck by the intensity of effort made by these researchers, who believe that play is an important phenomenon, to demonstrate its value in regard to other developmental phenomena that the culture has deemed more important than play. This issue, which is rarely addressed even by early childhood professionals who value play, is whether play, and in particular pretend play, has to be justified with evidence that it improves other developmental goals’ (p. 47). Western societies have a tradition of reducing wholes to perceived beneficial elements such as developing vitamin pills to be taken even by those who are not vitamin deficient and have access to adequate wholefoods but choose or are encouraged to select a more processed diet. Likewise, researchers continue to identify elements of play that are associated with cognitive development, but it is important to avoid elevation of status of those

Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development

elements of play and neglect of the areas of play about which there is less understanding. It is also important that these elements are not decontextualized and repackaged into programmes to promote cognitive development; to do so would miss the point of outdoor play. Much remains unknown about play and researchers struggle to describe all its elements or understand how these might interact. It is important, therefore, to view play holistically, such as by considering its role in immaturity (Bjorklund & Beers, 2016) rather than as a collection of behaviours that can be shaped and manipulated to meet a desired end goal.

REFERENCES Alexander, S. A., Frohlich, K. L., & Fusco, C. (2014). Playing for health? Revisiting health promotion to examine the emerging public health position on children’s play. Health Promotion International, 29(1), 155–164. Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71–82. Baker, D. P., Eslinger, P. J., Benavides, M., Peters, E., Dieckmann, N. F., & Leon, J. (2015). The cognitive impact of the education revolution: A possible cause of the Flynn Effect on population IQ. Intelligence, 49, 144–158. Bell, H. C., Pellis, S. M., & Kolb, B. (2010). Juvenile peer play experience and the development of the orbitofrontal and medial prefrontal cortices. Behavioural Brain Research, 207(1), 7–13. Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 1–13. Bergen, D. (2013). Does pretend play matter? Searching for evidence: Comment on Lillard et  al. (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 45–48. Berk, L. E., Mann, T. D., & Ogan, A. T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for development of self-regulation. In Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth.

93

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195304381.003.0005. Best, J. R. (2010). Effects of physical activity on children’s executive function: Contributions of experimental research on aerobic exercise. Developmental Review. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.dr.2010.08.001. Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive functions after age 5: Changes and correlates. Developmental Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.05.002. Bjorklund, D. F., & Beers, C. (2016). The adaptive value of cognitive immaturity: applications of evolutionary developmental psychology to early education. In D. C. Geary & D. B. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 3–32). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Available at https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_1. Blair, C. (2016). Developmental science and executive function. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 3–7. Bodrova, E. (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today’s dilemma of early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(3), 357–369. Brown, W. H., Pfeiffer, K. A., McIver, K. L., Dowda, M., Addy, C. L., & Pate, R. R. (2009). Social and environmental factors associated with preschoolers’ nonsedentary physical activity. Child Development, 80(1), 45–58. Bundy, A. C., Naughton, G., Tranter, P., Wyver, S., Baur, L., Schiller, W., … Charmaz, K. (2011). The Sydney Playground Project: Popping the bubblewrap – unleashing the power of play: A cluster randomized controlled trial of a primary school playground-based intervention aiming to increase children’s physical activity and social skills. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 680. Cemore, J. J., & Herwig, J. E. (2005). Delay of gratification and make-believe play of preschoolers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(3), 251–266. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. Dias, M. G., & Harris, P. L. (1988). The effect of make-believe play on deductive reasoning.

94

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(3), 207–221. Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramatic play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216–238. Engelen, L., Bundy, A. C., Naughton, G., Simpson, J. M., Bauman, A., Ragen, J., … van der Ploeg, H. P. (2013). Increasing physical activity in young primary school children – it’s child’s play: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Preventive Medicine, 56(5), 319–325. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29–51. Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191. Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Singer, D. G. (2006). Why play = learning: A challenge for parents and educators. In Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195304381.003.0001. Golomb, C., & Cornelius, C. B. (1977). Symbolic play and its cognitive significance. Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 246–252. Hamilton, J. (2014). Scientists say child’s play helps build a better brain. NPR Ed NPR, morning edition, 6 August 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2016 from www.npr.org/sections/ ed/2014/08/06/336361277/ scientists-say-childs-play-helps-build-a-better-brain. Heersmink, R. (2013). A taxonomy of cognitive artifacts: Function, information, and categories. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 465–481. Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(1), 58–65. Karsten, L. (2005). It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Children’s Geographies, 3(3), 275–290. Kaufman, A. S. (2010). ‘In what way are apples and oranges alike?’ A critique of Flynn’s interpretation of the Flynn effect. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 382–398.

Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. Lillard, A. S. (1998). Playing with a theory of mind. In O. N. Sacharo & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 11–33). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Lillard, A. S., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Palmquist, C. M., Lerner, M. D., & Smith, E. D. (2013). Concepts and theories, methods and reasons: Why do the children (pretend) play? Reply to Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, and Golinkoff (2013); Bergen (2013); and Walker and Gopnik (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 49–52. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2012). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychology Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33–40. Macvarish, J., Lee, E., & Lowe, P. (2014). The ‘First Three Years’ Movement and the infant brain: A review of critiques. Sociology Compass, 8(6), 792–804. Medellin, C. (2015). Opportunities for playbased experiences in ‘No Child Left Behind’ kindergarten classrooms: The role of training, resources, and accountability pressures in meeting best practices. PhD thesis, City University of New York. http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/594. Meyers, A. B., & Berk, L. E. (2014). Makebelieve play and self-regulation. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Play and Learning in Early Childhood (pp. 43–55). London: Sage. Milteer, R. M., Ginsburg, K. R., Council on Communications and Media Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, & Mulligan, D. A. (2012). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bond: Focus on children in poverty. Pediatrics, 129(1), e204–e213; doi:10.1542/peds. 2011-2953.

Outdoor Play and Cognitive Development

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7), 2693–2698. Moriguchi, Y., Chevalier, N., & Zelazo, P. D. (2016). Editorial: Development of executive function during childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 6. Murray, R., Ramstetter, C., Devore, C., Allison, M., Ancona, R., Barnett, S., … Young, T. (2013). The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics, 131(1), 183–188. Ojaimi, E., Rose, K. A., Smith, W., Morgan, I. G., Martin, F. J., & Mitchell, P. (2005). Methods for a population-based study of myopia and other eye conditions in school children: The Sydney Myopia Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 12(1), 59–69. Pellegrini, A. D., & Holmes, R. M. (2006). The role of recess in primary school. In Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195304381.003.0003. Pontifex, M. B., Raine, L. B., Johnson, C. R., Chaddock, L., Voss, M. W., Cohen, N. J., … Hillman, C. H. (2011). Cardiorespiratory ­fitness and the flexible modulation of cognitive control in preadolescent children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(6), 1332–1345. Ramstetter, C. L., Murray, R., & Garner, A. S. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517–526. Reynolds, G. (2012). Phys Ed: How exercise fuels the brain. New York Times, 22 February. Retrieved 6 November 2016 from http:// well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/ how-exercise-fuels-the-brain/?_r=0. Rodgers, J. L. (1998). A critique of the Flynn Effect: Massive IQ gains, methodological artifacts, or both? Intelligence, 26(4), 337–356. Rose, K. A., Morgan, I. G., Ip, J., Kifley, A., Huynh, S., Smith, W., & Mitchell, P. (2008). Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology, 115(8), 1279–1285. Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal prediction

95

of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 129–139. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2010). ‘It tickles in my tummy!’: Understanding children’s risk-taking in play through reversal theory. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(1), 67–88. Schwebel, D. C., Rosen, C. S., & Singer, J. L. (1999). Preschoolers’ pretend play and theory of mind: The role of jointly constructed pretence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 333–348. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Flynn Effect: So what? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 434–440. Sugiyama, T., Okely, A. D., Masters, J. M., & Moore, G. T. (2010). Attributes of child care centers and outdoor play areas associated with preschoolers’ physical activity and sedentary behavior. Environment and Behavior, 44(3), 334–349. Sundet, J. M., Barlaug, D. G., & Torjussen, T. M. (2004). The end of the Flynn effect?: A study of secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century. Intelligence, 32(4), 349–362. Teasdale, T. W., & Owen, D. R. (2005). A longterm rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(4), 837–843. Teasdale, T. W., & Owen, D. R. (2008). Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn Effect. Intelligence, 36(2), 121–126. Tomporowski, P. D., Naglieri, J. A., & Lambourne, K. (2012). Exercise psychology and children’s intelligence. In E. O. Acevedo (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Exercise Psychology (pp. 409–429). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J., & Trezza, V. (2014). What the laboratory rat has taught us about social play behavior: Role in behavioral development and neural mechanisms. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 16, 189–212. Vanegas, S. B., & Davidson, D. (2015). Investigating distinct and related contributions of weak central coherence, executive dysfunction, and systemizing theories to the cognitive profiles of children with autism spectrum disorders and typically developing children. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 11, 77–92.

96

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Verbeken, S., Braet, C., Goossens, L., & van der Oord, S. (2013). Executive function training with game elements for obese children: A novel treatment to enhance self-regulatory abilities for weight-control. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(6), 290–299. Waller, T. (2007). ‘The trampoline tree and the swamp monster with 18 heads’: Outdoor play in the Foundation Stage and Foundation Phase. Education 3–13, 35(4), 393–407. Ward, D., Hales, D., Haverly, K., Marks, J., Benjamin, S., Ball, S., & Trost, S. (2008). An instrument to assess the obesogenic environment of child care centers. American Journal of Health Behavior, 32(4), 380–386. Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R. J., & Blair, C. B. (2011). Contributions of modern measurement theory to measuring executive function in early childhood: An empirical demonstration. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 414–435. Wilson, S. C., & Kleiman, D. G. (1974). Eliciting play: A comparative study. American Zoologist, 14(1), 1–2. Woltering, S., Lishak, V., Hodgson, N., Granic, I., & Zelazo, P. D. (2016). Executive function in children with externalizing and comorbid internalizing behavior problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(1), 30–38. Wyver, S. R., & Spence, S. H. (1999). Play and divergent problem solving: Evidence supporting

a reciprocal relationship. Early Education & Development, 10(4), 419–444. Wyver, S., Tranter, P., Bundy, A., & Naughton, G. (2012). Changing contexts of play: Losses and opportunities. In J. Bowes, R. Grace, & K. Hodge (Eds.), Children, families and communities: Contexts and consequences (4th ed.) (pp. 162–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wyver, S., Tranter, P., Naughton, G., Little, H., Sandseter, E. B. H., & Bundy, A. (2010). Ten ways to restrict children’s freedom to play: The problem of surplus safety. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(3), 263–277. Wyver, S., Tranter, P., Sandseter, E. B. H., Naughton, G., Little, H., Bundy, A., … Engelen, L. (2012). Places to play outdoors: Sedentary and safe or active and risky? In Children and childhoods 1: Contemporary perspectives, places and practices. (pp. 85–107). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Zelazo, P. D. (2015). Executive function: Reflection, iterative reprocessing, complexity, and the developing brain. Developmental Review, 38, 55–68. Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2010). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In The Wiley–Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (2nd ed.) (pp. 574–603). Oxford: Blackwell.

6 Forest School for the Early Years in England Sara Knight

INTRODUCTION Striking a balance between repetitions of a familiar story of what Forest School in the UK is and laying necessary groundwork, this chapter will place the story of Forest School in the early years in the UK firmly in the Education for Sustainability agenda. This will demonstrate the importance of Forest School to future policy and practice. Principally a literature review, with reference to participant observations in the field, this chapter will begin by discussing why Forest School has become popular in the UK. It will explore the roots of the approach, both in the UK and in mainland Europe, and consider the cultural influences on the different delivery styles that have grown from these roots. From this base, I will discuss the relevance of Forest School to the development of young children. This will not only consider the cognitive benefits common to most forms of environmental and outdoor education, but also the welldocumented social and emotional benefits

(for example Borradaile, 2006; Hughes, 2007; O’Brien and Murray, 2007) of the Forest School approach. I will then relate these to sustainability issues, and consider how Forest School is ideally placed to evidence the importance of education for sustainable development with our youngest children. This will reference a recent study undertaken by the present author and a colleague in 2014.

WHAT IS FOREST SCHOOL IN THE UK? The inception of this conceptual approach to young children’s play and learning in outdoor spaces can be clearly dated to the early 1990s and clearly located to Bridgwater College in Somerset. It has been frequently documented (for example, WilliamsSiegfredsen, 2012; Knight, 2013) that in 1993 a group of students and lecturers from the Early Years education department of the

98

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

college made a trip to Denmark where they observed the outdoor traditions in the nurseries there, and were particularly struck by the attitudes to risk-taking and all-weather access to the outdoors for 3–6-year-old children. They felt that the children were gaining valuable cognitive and social skills that easily balanced out any risks such as those not usually permitted in UK practice at that time. Indeed, this was a time of risk-aversion in the UK education system, but the climate was right for the pendulum to swing back in favour of risk-taking as an important learning tool (Gill, 2007). On their return, the staff and students developed a methodology based on their Danish experience to use with the children in the college nursery. They called their approach ‘Forest School’. This name stuck and is the origin of the term that has become so popular in the UK today. The staff also developed a training course so that trainee nursery nurses, practising nursery staff and primary school teachers could replicate the ideas in their own settings. This involved some considerations of the theoretical underpinnings of the approach, and the foundations of a coherent theoretical perspective, which this chapter will explore later, were laid. The initial development was focused on the ages of the children in day nurseries in the UK at the time, primarily children between the ages of 3 and 5. If children were younger than this then the legislative framework of the time required different ratios of adults to children and the care standards would possibly restrict some of the activities that could be introduced. If the children were over 5 then they would be in primary school. The training course was designed for nursery nurses, and was at the same level as their initial training, which in the UK at that time was below graduate level, at what is termed Level 3 (see the UK Accredited Qualifications (2012) for a diagrammatic explanation). At this point in time it had no impact on the initial training of teachers, whose training was at Level 6, in other words at graduate level, although

many primary school teachers elect to take the Level 3 course. The awarding body, then called the Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC), was one specializing in vocational awards and with a respected nursery nurse course already a part of its portfolio. This early years approach ensured that early Forest School sessions were play-based, child-centred and as far as possible child-led. The use of Forest School has, however, spread to include many other groups, and whilst this chapter is concerned with Forest School in the early years it is important to consider its spread, as this has had an impact on the later theoretical developments. One of the original lecturers from Bridgwater College, Gordon Woodall, was from a different department in the college, and his work was largely with young adults with severe and moderate learning or behavioural difficulties. He began to use the Forest School approach with them, taking them out into local woodlands to develop their confidence and team-building skills through managed risk-taking. He found that this approach worked as well with young adults as it had with young children, and he subsequently introduced the approach to other trainees who needed help in managing their social interactions. He founded his own centre in the Blackdown Hills and further developed the aspects of Forest School dealing with emotional intelligence, which have become fundamental to Forest School training in the UK today (Neenan, 2011: 68). He updated the Level 3 qualification to include these new aspects, and validated it through a different awarding body, the Open College Network (OCN), which specialized in courses delivered by providers outside the conventional Further Education college system. Woodall’s main contribution to the development of Forest School was a recognition of the importance of developing emotional intelligence in the participants. To do this he piloted an approach of rewarding positive behaviours with increasing levels of responsibility and autonomy.

FOREST SCHOOL FOR THE EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND

By the turn of the century Forest School was spreading across the UK. In Wales and Scotland in particular this spread had been encouraged by the Forestry Commission, under the umbrella of their Forest Education Initiative section. It was the Forestry Commission which commissioned the first research into the effectiveness of Forest School, as discussed below. In England the Forestry Commission appointed a Forest School Coordinator, Susannah Podmore, who was helping groups to form across the country even where there was little Forestry Commission land. She also facilitated the formation of the group that was to become the Forest School Association, which aims to draw together the wide range of practitioners into one membership. This association is allied to the Forest School Trainer’s Network, which coordinates the updating and consistency between the different training courses and providers. The Trainer’s Network includes representatives using both the BTEC qualifications (now awarded by the Edexcel examinations board) and the OCN qualifications (now awarded by NOCN and the Open College Network West Midlands Region). Bridgwater College continues to deliver its training courses, still primarily with an early years focus, but there are many other training organizations validated to run training at Level 3. Forest School sessions have become very popular with children, settings and parents. The most widespread delivery continues to be to children aged 3 to 7 years in all of the UK home nations, echoing the Jesuit saying ‘Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man’ (Atherton, 2013), and emphasizing the importance of the natural environment in healthy early development. Interesting sessions run for others such as mental health groups and women’s refuges are outside the scope of this chapter. Whether all the delivery models conform to the standards aspired to by the Forest School Association is debated (Knight, 2016), but the popularity of the idea is testament

99

to the current concerns in the general public about the long-term effects of disconnecting from our natural environment, as exemplified by Richard Louv’s popular book (Louv, 2010). In 2015 there were over a thousand Forest School practitioners across the UK who were qualified at Level 3 and were members of the Forest School Association (Forest School Association, 2015a). There were many more who were differently qualified or associated. In England, Forest School sessions have become a feature of more than half of primary school Reception classes (for children aged 4 and 5) and the influence of Forest School has been felt in most early years settings. For example, if they are not engaging with Forest School they will have access to more robust outdoor play provision than was common 20 years ago, and in Foundation Stage settings (which includes both nurseries and Reception classes) across England mud kitchens are now a common sight. In Scotland the Forestry Commission continues to play an important role in supporting local practitioner groups through Outdoor and Woodland Learning Scotland (OWLS, 2015). The Play Strategy (Scottish Government, 2013) and the Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Government, 2010) emphasize the importance of outdoor playful child-led opportunities, and this is impacting both on initial teacher training courses and on the requirements for teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD). In Wales, the Foundation Phase Curriculum Framework, which covers the ages 3 to 7 years, was revised in 2015 and clearly places the outdoor play space on an equal footing with the indoor play space (Welsh Government, 2015: 3). Forest School Wales ensures access to sessions for the majority of children whose parents want it (Forest School Wales, 2015). Universities are including modules on Forest School and Outdoor Play on many of their early years and education courses as well as their outdoor education courses. For example, the University of Worcester in the west

100

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

of England, Anglia Ruskin University in the east, Strathclyde University in Scotland and Cardiff University in Wales all have such modules.

WHAT WERE THE PROGENITORS OF FOREST SCHOOL IN THE UK? Given the Danish connection, it is appropriate to start with a discussion of some Scandinavian traditions that influenced the development of Forest School in the UK at its start. Traditional Scandinavian culture is underpinned with the Norse traditions of Allemannsrett, dating from Viking times, and Friluftsliv, a term attributed to Henrik Ibsen in 1895. Literally translated, allemannsrett means ‘all man’s right’, which honours the right of access to and passage through uncultivated land in the countryside, regardless of who owns it. It is also applied to cultivated land when it is frozen and snow-covered. Recent legislation, for example the Norwegian 2012 Outdoor Recreation Act, protects these rights whilst ensuring that they come with responsibilities to avoid damage to the natural environment. Friluftsliv, loosely translated as ‘open air life’, was first used in print by the famous Norwegian writer, dramatist and poet Henrik Ibsen in 1859 (Henderson and Vikander, 2007: 9). The term encapsulates the idea that embedded into Scandinavian culture is the understanding that people need to and wish to spend time in the wilder outdoors at all ages. When this tradition came under threat from industrialization and urbanization in Sweden in the early part of the twentieth century, Gösta Frohm created the character of Skogsmulle to teach young children about their environment. In 1988 the Skogsmulle Foundation was created and continues to promote environmental education to this day (Joyce, 2012: 83). These strands demonstrate why the Danish early years education sector in 1993 was predicated on children’s rights to

and needs for time in wilder outdoor spaces, playing and learning to manage their own safety. In addition, the theories underpinning the pedagogies in the Danish settings were familiar to the British early years team. As in Denmark, British nursery staff were trained to be familiar with Steiner and Froebelian philosophy and were trained to use a holistic approach to a play-based curriculum based on the works of Piaget, Bruner and Vygotsky. Nurseries and daycare settings aimed to provide playful environments for their children whether they badged themselves as ‘Steiner’, ‘Montessori’ or espoused a Piagetian approach. Added to this, in the earlier parts of the twentieth century the MacMillan sisters and Susan Isaacs had all stressed the developmental importance of fresh air and being outside. The British team found the Danish examples to be within their ‘zone of proximal development’, to use a Vygotskian term. The final reason for it to be embraced with such enthusiasm in the UK was that it arrived just as the early years and playwork sectors were concerned about the impact of the introduction of the formal National Curriculum on the youngest children. The Education Reform Act of 1988 introduced a National Curriculum across England, Wales and Northern Ireland for children from 5 to 16 years. Despite the fact that the Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum (for children under the age of 5 years) did not become a statutory requirement until 2008, and that when it did arrive it stated its commitment to a play-based learning environment, there were concerns across the sector that education for our youngest children was about to become more formalized, more restrictive and more centred within a classroom-like environment. Colleges such as Bridgwater were eager to demonstrate the effective developmental opportunities in alternative strategies. Forest School in the UK was born, therefore, from three things. Firstly, there was a concern about the direction of travel

FOREST SCHOOL FOR THE EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND

regarding the nature of early years education at a national level. Secondly, there was a synthesis between the pedagogical approaches as seen by the visiting team from Bridgwater College and those that they were teaching to their students, and were being used in the majority of UK settings. Thirdly, there was the underpinning cultural approach to outdoor experiences that was different in Denmark from the common experiences in England. The conjunction of need, sympathy and innovation was serendipitous!

WHAT ARE ITS DETERMINING CHARACTERISTICS, AND WHY? These have been distilled into six guiding principles by the Forest School Association in the UK, and they are published on their website (Forest School Association, 2015b): Principle 1: Forest School is a long-term process of frequent and regular sessions in a woodland or natural environment, rather than a one-off visit. Planning, adaptation, observations and reviewing are integral elements of Forest School.

The reasons behind this principle are that Forest School practitioners are looking to establish long-lasting changes in behaviours and perceptions. Firstly, we know that in early childhood neural pathways are developed by repeated exposure to stimuli and by repetitions of actions and events. To change behaviour and ‘reprogramme’ older children and adults takes longer than establishing behaviours during normal development. For these reasons Forest School takes place regularly, ideally at least every other week, and over an extended period of time. The precise length will be different for different ages and purposes, but evidence from long-running programmes working with older children has demonstrated success with even quite troubled young people (Cree, 2011: 107). Secondly, the best environmental engagements will take place if the duration of the

101

sessions encompasses all the seasons. Nature has lessons that take time to learn, and the awe and wonder that spring from experiencing seasonal changes at first hand are not replicable. This is a spiritual dimension as well as a cognitive one, and feeds into children’s sense of well-being. Watching buds burst on time-lapse photography is amazing, but seeing the weekly changes in the sprouting understorey is magical. A Forest School programme has a pedagogy predicated upon observations that feed into collaborative work between learners and practitioners. This structure should clearly demonstrate progression in learning. Thus the initial sessions of any programme establish physical and behavioural boundaries as well as making initial observations on which to base future programme development. As can be seen in Figure 6.1, the boundaries are often symbolic rather than a genuine attempt to keep people in or out of the site. The activities that are then incorporated into later sessions feed the interests of the learners and develop their skills in interacting with each other and their environment. As the sessions unroll, the practitioner guides the learners to increase their autonomy over their own learning experience. So it is that no two blocks of sessions will be the same, feeding as they do from both the individual skills of the practitioners involved and the needs and interests of the particular learner group. It takes time to build the trust and cooperation and to explore the possibilities available. The practitioner observes, and from those observations suggests and intervenes sensitively. This takes time. During training, practitioners are required to run at least six sessions as a part of their training. There has been some confusion that has resulted in some settings thinking that six sessions will be sufficient to tick the box that says that ‘this child has experienced Forest School’. Whilst having some Forest School sessions is better than having no Forest School sessions, the best long-term changes cannot be achieved by this assumption. If

102

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Figure 6.1  A well-used Forest School site

children are living in rural areas and their parents/carers adopt lifestyles that enable their children to engage creatively with the wilder world, then 6 weeks may be adequate, if not ideal. For children whose experience of wild nature is limited to their Forest School sessions it is highly unlikely that 6 weeks will lay the foundations for a lifelong love of themselves and of the natural world. Unfortunately, circumstances and budgets being what they are, it is far more likely that the number of sessions children have access to will be less if they live in urban areas than if they live in rural areas. Principle 2: Forest School takes place in a woodland or natural wooded environment to support the development of a relationship between the learner and the natural world.

Jung recognized that trees have a special quality which human beings respond to (1963: 86). As the late Roger Deakin puts it, ‘to enter a wood is to pass into a different world in which we ourselves are transformed’ (Deakin, 2007: x). However, whilst woodland is the ideal environment for Forest

School, many other sites, some with only a few trees, are able to support good Forest School practice, particularly with younger children whose conception of size enables three trees to become a wood for them. Again, it is better to have a Forest School experience with a skilled practitioner who can make the best of what is on offer than not to have a Forest School experience because there is no wild wood accessible. What is important is that the wooded space matches the needs of the programme and the learners, providing them with the space and environment in which to explore and discover. Forest School practitioners monitor the ecological impact of their groups on the space they are using. This is a part of encouraging a respect for and a love of nature, and learners will become a part of this monitoring process at a level appropriate to them. The groups will work within a sustainable site management plan agreed between the landowner/manager, the Forest School practitioner and the learners. Through this process the practitioner will foster a relationship with the group and their natural surroundings

FOREST SCHOOL FOR THE EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND

through regular personal experiences in order to develop long-term environmentally sustainable attitudes and practices in staff, learners and the wider community. And in many of the activities commonly used by practitioners, Forest School uses natural resources for inspiration, to enable ideas to develop and to facilitate intrinsic motivation. Principle 3: Forest School aims to promote the holistic development of all those involved, fostering resilient, confident, independent and creative learners.

Forest School practitioners design programmes with the aim of developing the physical, social, cognitive, linguistic, emotional, social and spiritual aspects of the learner. The age and experiences of the learners and the skills of individual practitioners will determine which aspects take precedence, but research is showing that all these aspects will be positively influenced by Forest School. This will be discussed further in the next section of this chapter. Where appropriate, the Forest School leader will aim to link experiences at Forest School to home, work and/or school education with the goal of improving outcomes in all of the settings in which the learner operates. Unfortunately, some Forest School practitioners in England find themselves under pressure to design sessions that are run for children of statutory school age to fit with the formal, indoor curriculum. It takes a determined practitioner to stand up for a child-centred and child-led approach, but the PLOD (Possible Lines of Development) developed by Claire Warden (2015) offer a useful tool for reflecting on events and using the children’s interests and needs to plan further. Principle 4: Forest School offers learners the opportunity to take supported risks appropriate to the environment and to themselves.

Tim Gill identified four main arguments to support practices that enable children to take developmentally appropriate risks as a part of healthy childhood and that prepares them

103

for adulthood (Gill, 2007: 15). His work has helped Forest School practitioners in the UK to articulate their intuitive instincts about the importance of risks, both physical and emotional, to healthy development. Forest School sessions provide opportunities designed to build on an individual’s innate motivation, positive attitudes and interests. Learners may need guidance to develop specific skills such as tool use to follow those interests, or they may have knowledge and skills to share with others that will help to build their confidence and self-esteem. Forest School uses tools and fires only where they are deemed appropriate to the learners, and dependent on completion of a baseline risk assessment. Forest School practitioners follow a risk–benefit process which they manage jointly with the learner and that is tailored to the developmental stage and level of experience of that learner. This can enable learners who struggle in formal settings to shine in the woods, gaining confidence and leadership skills that can transfer back into their indoor settings. Principle 5. Forest School is run by qualified Forest School practitioners who continuously maintain and develop their professional practice.

Forest School is led by qualified Forest School practitioners, who are required to hold a minimum of an accredited Level 3 Forest School qualification, as discussed earlier in this chapter. As these principles indicate, an experienced Forest School leader needs a minimum level of skill and knowledge across a wide range of areas of expertise. The Level 3 training courses cover practical knowledge and skills from basic health and safety to simple tool use to ecological impact assessments. In addition, they cover learning theories including those around developing emotional intelligence. On top of this there is training around managing groups, first aid and risk management. As each practitioner is unique some will be stronger in one or more areas, and newly qualified practitioners are encouraged to explore where their skill-set will best fit

104

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

initially. But there is an expectation that they will continue to develop new skills and expand their knowledge base over time. The Forest School leader is a reflective practitioner and sees themself, therefore, as a learner too. The leader is not alone at Forest School. There is a high ratio of practitioner/adults to learners, at least one of whom will have had some form of Forest School training. There are introductory courses available, and certificated programmes at Levels 1 and 2. The practitioners and adults regularly helping at Forest School are subject to relevant checks into their suitability to have prolonged contact with children, young people and vulnerable people, in accordance with government requirements. Leaders and other trained practitioners hold up-to-date first aid qualifications, which includes paediatric (if appropriate) and outdoor elements. The Forest School leader will have relevant working documents to support their practice, which contain all the policies and procedures required for running Forest School and which establish the roles and responsibilities of staff and volunteers. Principle 6. Forest School uses a range of learnercentred processes to create a community for development and learning.

A learner-centred pedagogical approach is employed by Forest School that is responsive to the needs and interests of learners. This starts with the initial engagement between the leader and the setting or individual learner, but from that point on practitioner observations are an important element of Forest School pedagogy. These observations feed into ‘scaffolding’ behaviour by the practitioners and adults or expert peers, and they ensure that experiences are tailored to learning and development at an individual level. The practitioner develops these during their programmes through further observations, careful planning, appropriate dialogue and relationship building. Regardless of the ages of the learners, play and choice are an

integral part of the Forest School learning process, and play is recognized as vital to learning and development at Forest School. As Else says, ‘playing is what we all do to find out about the world about us’ (Else, 2009: 30). Sensitive and playful interactions ensure that Forest School provides a stimulus for all learning preferences and dispositions. Reflective practice is a feature of each session to ensure learners and practitioners can understand their achievements, develop emotional intelligence and plan for the future, and so many sessions incorporate time sitting around the fire pit (whether the fire is lit or not) discussing experiences, preferences and ideas. This element may well be the reason why Forest School is perceived to have had such an impact on the development of communication skills in all the groups it has been tried with. Some supporting evidence for this claim is explored in the next section.

WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS FOR ITS BENEFITS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE UK? The first research projects into the outcomes from Forest School were commissioned by the Forestry Commission and undertaken by the New Economic Foundation. Papers and publications from these include ‘Forest School Scotland: An evaluation’ (Borradaile, 2006), ‘Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain’ (O’Brien and Murray, 2007), ‘Pentre Forest School: An evaluation of a Forest School project’ (Hughes, 2007). These all recorded the impact of Forest School on children between the ages of 3 and 11, noting positive changes in six areas: • Increases in the self-esteem and confidence of those individuals who take part. • Improvements in an individual’s ability to work cooperatively and increases in their awareness of others.

FOREST SCHOOL FOR THE EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND

• Increased motivation and concentration. • Improvements in language and communication skills. • Improvements in physical motor skills. • Developments in an individual’s knowledge and understanding of the environment.

The Forestry Commission projects all used the same methodology of participant action research and so to triangulate the findings one must look to other papers and projects. One such paper (Massey, 2003) was circulated by Worcestershire Local Education Authority (LEA) in 2003, and this found as follows: A summary of potential benefits of forest school: • The forest school program evolves from the needs of the child and includes the child’s interests. • Children developed good self-esteem in a climate of small achievable steps. • Provides a real context for language. • Provides the practitioner with an alternative view of the child and further insights into a child’s particular development. • Beneficial to a child’s all round development, particularly in the areas of personal, social and emotional language and communication. • Underpins the principles laid down in the foundation stage guidelines. • The forest school experience has been very well received by all those involved in it. • Provides opportunities for the children to take risks, problem solve and use thinking skills. • Complements learning in the classroom and can be transferred. (Massey, 2003)

These findings are similar to the Forestry Commission findings, as are those of the Hopton Literacy Project (Butwright et  al., 2007), which was undertaken in Norfolk. Their findings were that the children gained in three of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s (QCA, 2009) seven key concepts of Learning for Sustainability: 1 Citizenship and stewardship (supporting children to gain the skills necessary to act as stewards of native woodland) 2 Quality of life (giving children an opportunity to explore for themselves the benefits of working in

105

the outdoors and how it can contribute to learning, enjoyment, health and general well-being) 3 Diversity (exploring the diversity of a local habitat)

In addition, the children gained in learning objectives: • To work well with other people in pairs and small groups (social and emotional skills) • To look at images and describe what happened in Forest School (communication and language skills)

These findings were also corroborated by findings from Forest School in the southwest (Davis and Waite, 2005). This paper matched the outcomes from two Forest School projects to the six areas of learning in the Foundation Stage, finding gains in: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Personal, social and emotional development Communication, language and literacy Mathematical development Knowledge and understanding of the world Physical development Creative development

All these projects’ findings would indicate that wherever in the UK Forest School is being offered, for children from 3 years to 11 years there are demonstrable benefits in key areas of development that will impact on their wider school achievements. These benefits also feed positively into areas of current concern such as obesity (NHS Information Centre, 2012), mental health in children (Roe et al., 2008) and sustainability issues, which are discussed in the next section. No research exists that criticizes Forest School or that demonstrates a lack of positive outcomes from participation in sessions. The Forest School community has been criticized for lack of pedagogical rigour (Leather, 2012) and there is agreement across the sector that as most of the research is qualitative in nature there is a need to share research methodologies in order to generate sufficient data to improve the perceptions of the validity of the findings by being able to

106

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

make comparisons (Knight, 2016: 181). This is beginning to happen, as are a number of doctoral studies. Together these will in time provide the scientific data needed to inform educational policy.

HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT? A recent paper (Luff and Knight, 2014) reported on a workshop which they facilitated to explore the links between Forest School and environment sustainability using ‘The Seven Rs’ described by Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga (2008: 12). The 33 participants were all Forest School practitioners and they discussed how their own Forest School practices mapped to ‘The Seven Rs’: 1 Reduce – decreasing consumption of food, materials and resources 2 Reuse – using materials many times and for different purposes 3 Recycle – awareness of alternatives to discarding rubbish 4 Respect – nurturing understanding of and reverence for nature and natural processes and reducing the extent to which they are violated; showing consideration for people and other animals 5 Reflect – a habit/skill of being thoughtful, asking questions and wondering about experiences 6 Repair – restoring places and things, fixing/ mending broken objects 7 Responsibility – being trusted to take care of something or to do something worthwhile

Having readily agreed that Forest School practice did indeed encourage children to develop their understanding of and commitment to these headline words, the workshop members spent time considering the practices that exemplify them. Their conclusions are included here with permission from the authors and the Forest School Association, Essex.

Reduce Forest School settings encourage ‘litterless lunches’. All Forest School practitioners seek to create or find local sites to save transport consumption (Knight, 2013: 71). Forest School organizers aim to purchase ethically, for example buying a large pot of raisins to share, rather than multiple individual boxes.

Reuse Forest School practitioners aim to change the mindset from one use to another, by reframing an object as something different. Forest School sessions end by returning natural resources back into the environment. The management of Forest School sites involves coppicing and replanting, and the children are involved in this. All Forest School practitioners teach the children to use durable tools, not plastics. All Forest School sessions use the ‘Theory of Loose Parts’ for more creative play rather than one-use plastic imitations (Else, 2009: 65).

Recycle Forest School sessions encourage healthy eating of fruit, which in turn leads to composting and looks at natural recycling. All Forest School practitioners help children to use fallen tree materials to make dens, fires, etc. (Holland, 2012: 28). Forest School often involves discussions around the fact that found objects may be treasure to some, and may be rubbish to others.

Respect Forest School practitioners teach their children to leave their site as it was found. Forest School practitioners manage their settings, which includes considering the impact of their footfall on their site, and many ask the forest for permission to enter from a different

FOREST SCHOOL FOR THE EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND

route/direction to minimize the impact. Children are taught to respect other people’s creations when sharing a site, and practitioners model respectful behaviour. Forest School sessions always offer opportunities to develop children’s understanding of the vulnerability of trees, bugs, etc. as living things, possibly through use of magnifiers. They are shown how to put bugs back where they came from.

Reflect Many Forest School practitioners use ‘Sit Spots’, quiet places that provide time for the children to reflect on the surroundings, to listen and to observe. Most Forest School sessions end with a time for reflecting on the experiences of the day (sometimes with a ‘magic stick’ to denote whose turn it is to speak). Practitioners model reflecting, and may use photos to revisit events and discuss them in a reflective space. Practitioners respect children’s quiet spaces and give them time. Time is a key gift of Forest School to children (Doyle and Milchem, 2012: 50).

Repair Forest School sessions help children to take responsibility for breaking things, and support children to seek to repair equipment and toys. Practitioners engage everyone in the maintenance and care of the site, and of tools and equipment. Part of all Forest School sessions is to teach children to put logs back after looking underneath, and restore fire sites to their original state.

Responsibility Forest School practitioners all believe in helping children to create connections with their environment. This may be by encouraging them to identify a special tree, or to develop attachments through stories about trees (Ridgers et al., 2012), and to foster their

107

sense of personal responsibility by linking the destruction of trees to the wasteful use of paper. In all Forest School settings the children carry their own rucksacks with snacks, etc., and ensure they bring all they need into the wood, and then bring all they have brought out of the wood again. The children are taught to care for habitats and the environment. This includes assigning tasks to children, for example by caring for a new child, or by carrying a particular item, or by choosing one child to be the leader into the wood (O’Brien and Murray, 2007). The ease with which identifying these examples was achieved indicated to the facilitators that Forest School relates closely to education for sustainable development.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE IN THE UK? In the twenty-something years that Forest School has been available in the UK it has grown in its popularity and in its application. It is now seen as an aid to the strong and healthy development of mind and body in young children and is seen as having restorative and balancing qualities for older children and adults. Using Forest School to link people to their natural environment is believed to be a powerful aid to a sustainable future. It is no longer a strange alternative, but a preferred option for many early years settings. Across the UK, Forest School sessions or similar wilder outdoor provisions are offered by at least a third of early years settings. We can now look to see how Forest School might continue to complement mainstream educational practice. In 2009 the findings of the Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander et  al., 2010) were published. After three years of research, consultations and deliberations, some of the finest minds in early years and primary education deduced that major changes were needed to make an outdated system

108

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

of primary education based on a long-gone society fit for purpose. The changes required were too great for the politicians to stomach and their advice was soundly rejected. Instead, the state education system has continued to lumber towards more formality, more testing of schools as well as children, more focus on learning facts and figures, and in particular more emphasis on the rote learning of English and Mathematics. This is a shame. As Lucas et al. (2013: 3) state, we have no idea what the world our children will inhabit will be like, we can only know that it will change. For example, English is a fluid, constantly evolving language. Those of us of more mature years may wince at the sentence constructions of our younger colleagues, but when they become the majority users of those forms, then what is deemed to be ‘correct’ changes. As Claxton postulates in an earlier book (Claxton, 2002: 15), our best gift to our children is to develop their dispositions to learning, to help them to access the facts that are relevant to them when they need them. In areas of the world where education systems have taken that same route towards formalization, Forest School is becoming widespread. For example, in South Korea the Korea Association of Forest Kindergarten (Shin, 2015) is working with the government to develop Forest School training for early years teachers working to deliver Forest School sessions in over 1000 of the preschool settings there. In Japan yochien (kindergarten) are increasingly offering Forest School sessions (Ward, 2014). In Singapore the Ministry of Education is looking at the impact of outdoor learning on mental health (Ho, 2015), with the goals of developing personal resilience, socio-emotional competencies and independence, as well as being comfortable in the outdoors, in the primary years. Forest School is growing there as a result. In these countries they have already experienced the impact of formalization on the health and well-being of their children and are looking for ways to ameliorate the

damaging effects of the education system on the metal health of their citizens. Unless the education system in the UK changes to something closer to that proposed by Ken Robinson (2010), the future of Forest School in the UK seems secure. As the experiences of Koreans, Japanese and Singaporeans show, our children will continue to need Forest School as a way of building their resilience to the stresses inherent in the education system. And Education for Sustainable Development will also start from strong foundations of children entering school already engaged with and respectful of their local environments.

REFERENCES Alexander, R., Armstrong, M., Flutter, J., Hargreaves, L., Harrison, D., Harlen, W., Hartley-Brewer, E., Kershner, R., MacBeath, J., Mayall, B., Northen, S., Pugh, G., Richards, R. and Utting, D. (2010) Children, Their World, Their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Atherton J. S. (2013) Learning and teaching: Figures in behaviourism. Available at www. learningandteaching.info/learning/figures_ behaviourism.htm (accessed 10 October 2015). Borradaile, L. (2006) Forest School Scotland: An Evaluation. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission Scotland. Butwright, C., Falch-Lovesey, S. and Lord, C. (2007) Hopton Literacy Pilot: Using Forest Schools Experience as a Stimulus for Speaking and Listening, with a Focus on Raising Achievement in Boys Writing Using ICT. Norwich: Norfolk Local Education Authority. Claxton, G. (2002) Building Learning Power. Bristol: TLO Limited. Cree, J. (2011) ‘Maintaining the Forest School ethos while working with 14–19 year old boys’. In S. Knight (ed.), Forest School for All. London: Sage. Davis, B. and Waite, S. (2005) Forest School: Opportunities and Challenges in Early Years. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.

FOREST SCHOOL FOR THE EARLY YEARS IN ENGLAND

Deakin, R. (2007) Wildwood: A Journey Through Trees. London: Penguin. Doyle, J. and Milchem, K. (2012) Developing a Forest School in Early Years Provision. London: Practical Pre-School Books. Else, P. (2009) The Value of Play. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Forest School Association (2015a) www. forestschoolassociation.org/fsa-membersmap-and-database-public-profile/ (accessed 10 October 2015). Forest School Association (2015b) www. forestschoolassociation.org/full-principlesand-criteria-for-good-practice/ (accessed 18 October 2015). Forest School Wales (2015) www. forestschoolwales.org.uk/accessing-forestschool/yg-ar-draws-cymrufs-across-wales/ (accessed 10 October 2015). Gill, T. (2007) No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk Averse Society. London: Caloustie Gulbenkian Foundation. Henderson, B. and Vikander, N. (2007) Nature First: Outdoor Life the Friluftsliv Way. Toronto, Canada: Natural Heritage Books. Ho, S. (2015) ‘Outdoor learning in Singapore: Past, present and future’. Presented to ‘Lessons from Near and Far: Research and Policy’. Stratford: International Outdoor Learning Conference. Holland, C. (2012) I Love My World, 2nd edn. Otterton: Wholeland Press. Hughes, F. (2007) Pentre Forest School: An Evaluation of a Forest School Project. Ruthin: Forestry Commission Wales. Joyce, R. (2012) Outdoor Learning Past and Present. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Jung, C. (1963) Memories, Dreams, Reflections. London: Random House. Knight, S. (2013) Forest School and Outdoor Learning in the Early Years, 2nd edn. London: Sage. Knight, S. (2016) Forest School in Practice. London: Sage. Leather, M. (2012) Seeing the Wood from the Trees: Constructionism and Constructivism for Outdoor and Experiential Education. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Louv, R. (2010) Last Child in the Woods, 2nd edn. London: Atlantic Books. Lucas, B., Claxton, G. and Spencer, E. (2013) Expansive Education: Teaching Learners for the Real World. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

109

Luff, P. and Knight, S. (2014) Report on Workshop ‘The Role of Forest Schools in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability’. Available at www.fsaessex.co.uk (accessed 16 October 2015). Massey, S. (2003) The Benefits of a Forest School Experience for Children in Their Early Years. Worcester: Worcestershire Local Education Authority. Neenan, C. (2011) ‘Supporting emotional and social development in Forest School with adolescents’. In S. Knight (ed.), Forest School for All. London: Sage. NHS Information Centre, Lifestyles Statistics (2012) Statistics on obesity, physical activity and diet: England, 2012. Available at www. ic.nhs.uk (accessed 16 October 2015). O’Brien, L. and Murray, R. (2007) ‘Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain’. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6: 249–65. Outdoor and Woodland Learning Scotland (2015) ‘Forest School’. http://owlscotland.org/ local-options/forest-schools/ (accessed 10 October 2015). Pramling Samuelsson, I. and Kaga, Y. (2008) The Contribution of Early Childhood to a Sustainable Society. Paris: UNESCO. Available at www.oei.es/decada/unesco_infancia.pdf (accessed 22 September 2014). Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2009) Sustainable Development in Action: A Curriculum Planning Guide for Schools. London: QCA. Ridgers, N., Knowles, Z. and Sayers, J. (2012) ‘Encouraging play in the natural environment: A child-focused case study of Forest School’. Children’s Geographies, 10 (1): 49–65. Robinson, K. (2010) ‘Changing education paradigms’. TED talks, available at www.ted.com/ talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_ paradigms (accessed 19 October 2015). Roe, J., Aspinall, P. and Ward Thompson, C. (2008) Forest School: Evidence for Restorative Health Benefits in Young People. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission Scotland. Scottish Government (2010) Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning. Available at www.educationscotland.gov.uk/ Images/cfeOutdoorLearningfinal_tcm4596061.pdf (accessed 10 October 2015).

110

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Scottish Government (2013) Play Strategy for Scotland. Available at www.gov.scot/ Publications/2013/06/5675/8 (accessed 10 October 2015). Shin, J. (2015) Letter to the FSA from Korea Association of Forest Kindergarten, Seoul Branch. Available at www.forestschoolassociation.org/ letter-from-our-counterparts-in-south-korea/ (accessed 19 October 2015). UK Accredited Qualifications website (2012) www.accreditedqualifications.org.uk/ qualifications-and-credit-framework-qcf.html (accessed 10 October 2015). Ward, L. (2014) ‘Forest Schools catching on in Japan’. Education in Japan blog.

Available at https://educationinjapan. wordpress.com/2014/05/15/forest-schoolscatching-on-in-japan/ (accessed 19 October 2015). Warden, C. (2015) Learning with Nature: Embedding Outdoor Practice. London: Sage. Welsh Government (2015) Foundation Stage Framework. http://gov.wales/docs/dcells/ publications/150803-fp-framework-en.pdf (accessed 10 October 2015). Williams-Siegfredsen, J. (2012) Understanding the Danish Forest School Approach. Abingdon: David Fulton.

Part II

Critical Reflections on Policy and Regulation

7 Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play E l l e n B e a t e H a n s e n S a n d s e t e r, H e l e n L i t t l e , David Ball, David Eager and Mariana Brussoni

INTRODUCTION In this chapter we discuss and apply Sandseter’s (2007, 2009a) concept of children’s outdoor risky play and discuss its conditions in light of the need to provide children both safety and challenges. We will argue that with increased discussion regarding the appropriate balance between play safety on the one hand, and the benefits of giving children challenges and risks on the other hand, the need has grown for more knowledge on children’s risk-taking in play. You cannot give a person knowledge in the way a doctor gives a shot for measles. Rather, each person learns for himself or herself through the process of growing up in contact with nature and society; by observing, watching, listening and dreaming. (Peat, 1996, p. 59)

Physicist David Peat wrote these words after an encounter with the Blackfoot Nation in North America during which a young boy, steering a motor fishing boat with his father

on board, was clearly heading toward submerged rocks, yet the father remained silent. At the last moment the boy saw the rocks and cut the motor. Anthropologist Margaret Mead similarly observed that in the Manus society of New Guinea, children were typically exposed to a world of rickety, uneven boardwalks situated above the shifting waters of a marine environment. Maternal or sibling supervision was ever-present but intentionally unobtrusive, allowing children to make small mistakes while not being plagued by parental control. Mead noted that the children grew to be ‘physically dextrous, sure footed, clear eyed, quick handed’ (Mead, 2001 [1931], p. 21).

RISKY PLAY Recent studies have worked on identifying characteristics of outdoor risky play. Stephenson (2003) found, through observations and interviews of 4-year-old children on

114

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

the issue of risk-taking in play, that this included activities such as sliding, swinging, spinning, jumping, climbing and bike riding and that it was associated with ‘attempting something never done before, feeling on the borderline of “out of control” often because of height or speed, and overcoming fear’ (p. 36). Outdoor activities, such as climbing up steep hillsides and sliding down, climbing up and jumping down from large rocks or small cliffs, climbing in trees, shooting with bows and arrows, rolling on the ground, balancing on stones and fallen trees, etc., and using a knife to whittle sticks are seen as examples of such risky play among children (Kaarby, 2004; Sandseter, 2010). From observations of 3- to 5-year-old children, Sandseter (2007, 2009a) identified six categories of risky play: (a) Play with great HEIGHTS – danger of injury from falling, such as all forms of climbing, jumping, hanging/dangling or balancing from heights; (b) Play with high SPEED – uncontrolled speed and pace that can lead to a collision with something (or someone), for instance bicycling at high speeds, sledging (winter), sliding, running (uncontrollably); (c) Play with dangerous TOOLS – that can lead to injuries, for instance axe, saw, knife, hammer or ropes; (d) Play near dangerous ELEMENTS – where you can fall into or from something, such as water or a fire pit; (e) ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE Play – where the children can harm each other, for instance wrestling, fighting, fencing with sticks, etc.; (f) Play where the children can DISAPPEAR/ GET LOST, for instance when the children are without supervision and where there are no fences, such as in the woods.

THE PURSUIT OF SAFETY AND ITS IMPACT ON CHILDREN’S PLAY As the introductory stories highlight, Manus and Blackfoot children were evidently allowed direct and personal experience of

hazards. The same is likely true of the children of most Western cultures probably up to the middle of the twentieth century. From that point, however, beliefs began to change and accidents, previously assigned to carelessness, bad luck or destiny, began to be seen as foreseeable and preventable (Green, 1997). In 2001 the influential British Medical Journal went so far as to mandate eliminating the word ‘accident’ from the pages of the journal, as well as the safety profession’s lexicon: We believe that correct and consistent terminology will help improve understanding that injuries of all kinds—in homes, schools and workplaces, vehicles, and medical settings—are usually preventable. Such awareness, coupled with efforts to implement prevention strategies, will help reduce the incidence and severity of injuries. (Davis & Pless, 2001, p. 1320)

Thus, there was a strengthening and spreading notion that hazardous situations were foreseeable and measures should, necessarily, be implemented to prevent injury occurring. This notion is, generally speaking, valid, and as such the primary purpose of the now prolific discipline of risk assessment is to identify such situations and assign them a probability of occurrence. However, at this point of having identified hazardous situations, alternative philosophies on what should ensue may come to bear. In the context of play provision, the dominant discourse from the mid-twentieth century is that identified hazards should, if at all possible, be eliminated and, if not, at least be reduced. This is sometimes known as a hazard-based approach and its origins can be traced in Western countries to workplace settings (Ball, 2002). In some countries, though, the dividing line between practices in industry and public life were not highly differentiated and so the concept of hazard elimination spread to public life, including provision for children and their play. An example of this is the formal risk-management strategies that have emerged in several countries. These primarily entail advice on the physical features of

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play

children’s play environments and playground equipment, such as maximum fall height, impact absorbing surfaces, sharp edges, unstable equipment and the likelihood of being trapped, pinched, crushed or struck (Ball, 2002, 2004; Chalmers, 2003; DSB [Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning], 1996; Little, 2006; Mowat, Wang, Pickett, & Brison, 1998). These recommendations have been made on the basis of injury prevention research and experience showing that the majority of playground injuries result from falls from swings, slides, climbing frames and bicycles or other equipment, and from being hit, pinched or crushed in swing equipment (Ball, 2002; Bienefeld, Pickett, & Carr, 1996; Chalmers et  al., 1996; Illingworth, Brennan, Jay, Al-Ravi, & Collick, 1975; Mack, Hudson, & Thompson, 1997; Peterson, Gillies, Cook, Schick, & Little, 1994; Phelan, Khoury, Kalkwarf, & Lamphear, 2001; Rosen & Peterson, 1990; Sawyers, 1994; Swartz, 1992). An unintended outcome has been that play provision has increasingly lost its capacity to offer challenge (Little & Eager, 2010; Play Safety Forum, 2002/2008), even for children as young as 4–5 years, and especially affecting older teenagers who are left with little, if any, ability-related challenge. A second outcome has been that play equipment began increasingly to resemble the inside of a factory, with its steel crash barriers, railings, evenly spaced stairways and safety surfacing; an approach anchored in the belief that people cannot be trusted and that environmental (i.e., engineering) controls are more likely to work in terms of reducing injuries than behavioural measures (Gielen & Sleet, 2006). This regulation of play spaces has had a detrimental impact on play in two main ways. First, insufficient challenge and novelty in the playground can lead to inappropriate risk-taking as children seek thrills in a fearless manner (Greenfield, 2003). This has links with sensation-seeking as highlighted

115

in the literature relating to risk-taking and unintentional injury (DiLillo, Potts, & Himes, 1998; Potts, Martinez, & Dedmon, 1995). Secondly, it is associated with riskcompensation behaviour whereby individuals are thought to engage in greater risky behaviour when safety measures are applied to an activity (Morrongiello, Lasenby, & Walpole, 2007). Research reveals that both children themselves and the adults supervising them change their perceptions of the risks involved in activities when safety gear is worn (Morrongiello, Lasenby, et al., 2007; Morrongiello & Major, 2002; Morrongiello, Walpole, & Lasenby, 2007). A study of children’s behaviour on an obstacle course whilst wearing safety gear (helmets, wrist guards) showed increased risk-taking behaviour (greater speeds and recklessness, e.g., tripping, bumping into things, falling) compared to when they were not wearing safety gear (Morrongiello, Walpole, et al., 2007). Whilst all children in the study exhibited this riskcompensation behaviour, it was greatest for children whose temperamental characteristics (low inhibitory control, high thrill seeking) predisposed them to greater risk-taking. This drive to tackle play safety has been further enhanced by the casual use of statistics. National accident databases exist in many Western countries. These frequently identify play as high risk on the basis of the number of cases in comparison with those in other places that children visit or things that they do, and this is often taken as identifying this sector as a priority for remediation. One problem is that injuries and the resulting health care costs are easy to quantify, whereas the benefits of risk are intangible and difficult to measure directly. What this also fails to do, in part, is take account of the duration of exposure to the play environment, that is, how much time children and young people spend in activities classified as play. When this is done, the risk of harm per exposure turns out to be remarkably low in comparison with other sport and leisure activities in which children

116

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

are encouraged to engage (Ball, 2002; Nauta, Martin-Diener, Martin, van Mechelen, & Verhagen, 2015; Play Safety Forum, 2012). Statistics of playground injuries from several countries actually show that despite recent safety legislation to govern playground equipment in order to make play safer, playground injuries have not decreased (Ball, 2002; Briss, Sacks, Adiss, Kresnow, & O’Neil, 1995; Chalmers, 1999, 2003; Phelan et  al., 2001). The most serious playground injuries that result in death or severe disablement are rare and are not increasing (Ball, 2002; Bienefeld et al., 1996; Chalmers, 2003; Chalmers et al., 1996; Phelan et al., 2001). In recent years the impact of the ‘safety focus’ on children’s play has begun to be challenged. This challenge has been prominent in the United Kingdom. In the 1990s, the Play Safety Forum (PSF), a collective of agencies from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with interests in play provision, child safety and well-being, was formed to debate the issues. The outcome has been a series of publications which took a different stance from the hazard-based approach described above, and instead adopted a risk-based approach which saw childhood exposure to managed risk as both positive and necessary (Play Safety Forum, 2012), in effect, perhaps, recovering the ancient wisdoms of the Manus and Blackfoot cultures. A significant achievement by the PSF in its move to rethink safety and risk in play provision has been to win the support of the UK’s chief safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). For example, in 2008 Judith Hackitt, chair of the HSE, included the following passage in her speech to the House of Lords: If we don’t allow children to experience managed risk I have grave concerns about the future for workplace health and safety. If the next generation enter the workplace having been protected from all risk they will not be so much risk averse as completely risk naïve – creating an enormous task and dilemma for their employers – how to start that health and safety education process or to continue to try to protect them from all risk

which is of course impractical and impossible. (Hackitt, 2008)

The contest between, firstly, hazard- and risk-based approaches and, secondly, alternative visions of what might constitute good play provision is by no means over. On the one hand there is a strongly entrenched position amongst many play providers, predominantly local authorities, that play provision is synonymous with manufactured play equipment and in turn that play equipment must comply with national or international safety standards. The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) member bodies, and countries that have adopted the CEN Playground Standards, such as Australia and New Zealand, have only recently begun to explicitly endorse the notion that within the play context there is a trade-off to be made between risks and benefits and that safety should not necessarily trump other considerations such as play value and the need to provide elements of real risk in play. It has been further proposed that the territory currently occupied by Standards bodies extends, in fact, beyond its legitimate remit (Spiegal, Gill, Harbottle, & Ball, 2014). That is, while it would be quite legitimate for Standards to stipulate on, say, the construction of foundations for supporting equipment and the strength of ropes, their role in deciding how much challenge and risk should be present in a specific play setting is problematic. Such decisions should be made in the context of the local environment, the types of user and the local policy agenda. Play provision is also subject to other potentially highly significant developments. These derive from the realization that physical activity is good for health, possibly even being the ‘best buy’ in public health (Donaldson, 2000; Walker, 2013), and secondly that encounters with more natural environments should be encouraged, being health-beneficial in numerous ways (Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010; Gill, 2014; Maller, Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & St Leger, 2006).

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play

In both cases, where better to start any such campaigns than with the young?

BENEFITS OF RISK IN OUTDOOR PLAY Although we face situations where we expose ourselves to negative outcomes, there are also many situations where we take risks in order to achieve positive outcomes. The question is how risky play, where the possible outcome may potentially be injury and sometimes even death, can be developmentally and evolutionarily important. If the benefit of the behaviour outweighs the costs (injury or death), the behaviour should be naturally selected (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000). As adults we depend on our ability to adapt to new situations and problems and conquer challenges. As illustrated in the examples from the Blackfoot and Manus children, we obtained these skills by engaging in risktaking behaviour during our formative years. If we never took a risk we would never have learned to walk, to climb stairs, swim, ride a bicycle, boil an egg, ask someone out on a date, drive a car and many more far ‘riskier’ activities (Eager & Little, 2011). All these activities have one common element – for each there are unknown factors that make success uncertain. Therein lies the risk. Children approach the world around them through play; they are driven by curiosity and a need for excitement; they rehearse handling real-life risky situations through play and they discover what is safe and not (Adams, 2001; Apter, 2007; Gill, 2007; Smith, 1998; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Ball (2002) and Stutz (1999) emphasize the importance of letting children develop a sound sense of risk through taking risks in play. From a risk-theory perspective, by engaging in risk, children gain a realistic notion of the objective risk in the situation (Adams, 2001), rather than being limited to a subjective

117

understanding (Ball, 2002; Boyesen, 1997; Smith, 1998; Stutz, 1999). Through experiencing risk situations, children gain a broad perceptual memory of both the level of risk involved in different situations and what actions are necessary to handle the risk in an appropriate way (Boyesen, 1997). While risky play involves potential costs through the chance of physical injury, research has indicated a myriad of benefits. Through risk-taking in play, children show increased physical activity, improved motor and spatial skills, as well as learning risk assessment and risk mastery (Ball, 2002; Boyesen, 1997; Fjørtoft, 2000; Grahn, Mårtensson, Lindblad, Nilsson, & Ekman, 1997; Smith, 1998; Stutz, 1999). In their 14-week risky play intervention study, Lavrysen et al. (2015) found that children in the experimental group significantly improved reaction times in detecting risk compared to a control group, as well as their own pre-intervention performance. Likewise, observational studies of children at play found that they exposed themselves to risk, but displayed clear strategies for mitigating harm (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005; Mikkelsen & Christensen, 2009; Sandseter, 2009b). The benefits of risky play involving activities related to height and speed, such as sliding, swinging, spinning, falling, climbing and bike riding, may be relevant to practising and enhancing different motor/physical skills for developing muscle strength, endurance and skeletal quality (Bekoff & Byers, 1981; Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000; Byers & Walker, 1995; Humphreys & Smith, 1987; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). These kinds of play also involve training related to perceptual competencies, such as depth-, form-, shape-, size- and movement perception (Rakison, 2005), and general spatial-orientation abilities (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). These are important skills both for survival in childhood (immediate benefits) and for handling important adaptive tasks in adulthood (deferred benefits). Risky play may also be relevant to learning about one’s ecology and exploring the environment

118

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

(Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). Venturing out on their own away from the surveillance of caretakers is a way for children to explore their worlds and increase their comfort level (Smith, 1998). Bjorklund and Pellegrini (2002) similarly argue that children come to know their environment through continuously exploring new areas and objects. It seems that children attain enhanced familiarity and competence about their environment, its potentials and its dangers through exploring its features (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). Several human fears and phobias, such as fear of heights, fear of water and separation anxiety, appear naturally at a developmentally relevant age as a part of the child’s maturation, yet subsequently diminish as part of normal development as a result of regular interactions with the relevant environment and the anxious stimulus (Poulton & Menzies, 2002a, 2002b). Poulton and Menzies suggest that the tendency to these fears and phobias is non-associative innate, originating as adaptive fears that are necessary to keep the child safe, alert and careful when dealing with potentially dangerous situations. Research on fear of heights has shown that play at heights, even resulting in injury due to falls, both before age 5 and between ages 5 and 9 is associated with the absence of fear of heights at age 18 (Poulton, Davies, Menzies, Langley, & Silva, 1998). Thus, risky play with great heights may provide a desensitizing or habituating experience, resulting in less fear of heights later in life (Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). Similarly, research on separation anxiety shows that the number of separation experiences before age 9 correlates negatively with separation anxiety symptoms at age 18 (Poulton, Milne, Craske, & Menzies, 2001). Research on fear of water has concluded that there is no relationship between experiencing water trauma before age 9 and the symptoms of water fear at age 18 (Poulton, Menzies, Craske, Langley, & Silva, 1999). These findings suggest that risky play where children experience heights, separations and/or water may also have habituating effects on these

innate fears (Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). As such, Sandseter and Kennair (2011) suggest that an important aspect of risky play is the anti-phobic effect of exposure to typical anxiety-eliciting stimuli and contexts, in combination with positive emotions (thrills, excitement and fearful joy) and relatively safe situations. A recent systematic review examined the relationship between risky outdoor play and health (Brussoni et al., 2015). The 21 relevant articles examined getting lost, play at heights, rough-and-tumble play and risky play supportive environments. The results showed mainly positive outcomes. Play where children can get lost and risky play supportive environments were positively associated with physical activity and social health, and negatively associated with sedentary behaviour. Great heights were not related to fracture frequency or severity, and no head injuries were recorded. Rough-and-tumble play did not increase aggression, and was associated with increased social competence for boys and popular children, but results were mixed for other children. Aldis (1975) points out that much of children’s play is related to fear and that young children actively seek out the thrills of fearful situations such as swinging and jumping from high places. Hansen and Breivik’s (2001) study of 360 children aged 12–16 years with a high need for sensation-seeking indicated that they engaged primarily in healthy risk-taking behaviours; but if they lacked opportunities for healthy risk, they were more likely to engage in unhealthy risktaking (e.g., substance abuse, petty crime, drinking, speeding, self-harm). In interviews, adolescent boys in custody for delinquent behaviour indicated that they engaged in deviant behaviours because they lacked access to socially acceptable, thrilling and exciting activities, in part owing to a paucity of stimulating outdoor recreational opportunities (Robertson, 1994). Risk is not always about being reckless but rather about engaging with uncertainty

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play

in order to achieve a particular goal. Risk events require us to weigh our likelihood of success or failure based on relevant knowledge or information related to each particular situation and our individual abilities. It is only through facing challenges that we learn to appraise risks and make appropriate judgements about our likelihood of success (or failure) (Aven & Renn, 2009; Little, 2006), therefore risky play should not be viewed just for the developmental opportunities it offers children, but rather as life’s training for the unexpected (Eager, Little, & Nasri, 2011). Children need frequent opportunities to engage in activities where they will be able to learn from their mistakes. Outdoor play provides a vehicle for children to both develop and demonstrate knowledge, skills and concepts. Outdoor play allows children to actively construct their own understandings of their physical and social world and to understand their own capabilities in relation to their developing skills (Little & Wyver, 2008).

HANDLING RISK IN CHILDREN’S OUTDOOR PLAY There is an increasing disconnection between the promotion of children’s autonomy and agency as espoused by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1990) and children’s everyday reality in which their lives have become increasingly regulated and controlled (James & James, 2001). Contemporary theories of child development and early childhood education, such as sociocultural theory and post-structuralism, acknowledge the multiple influences in children’s lives, view children as being capable, active in their sociocultural contexts, and as agents in their own learning (Smith, 2002). This view of children as competent and capable is inherent in many early childhood curriculum documents, e.g. in Australia, New Zealand, England and Norway (DEEWR, 2009; Ministry of Education, 1996; NMER,

119

2006/2011). From this perspective, we would expect children to be actively engaged in constructing their own worlds, and able to negotiate and contribute to matters that affect them, including learning how to recognize and appraise risk (Kelley, Hood, & Mayall, 1998; Smith, 2002). Yet a number of international studies on outdoor play suggest that children’s opportunities for learning about risk and safety are often limited (Bundy et al., 2009; Little, 2015; Little & Eager, 2010; Tovey, 2007; Waters & Begley, 2007).

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Little and Wyver (2008) identified a number of factors that potentially lead to risk minimization in outdoor play, including: high child–staff ratios; external regulations restricting activities; poor outdoor environments; inadequate understanding by educators of the benefits of risk-taking; and fear of litigation. The extent to which these factors impact on outdoor play environments and approaches to risk and safety needs to be considered from a sociocultural theoretical framework. Early Childhood Education (ECE) is embedded within and reflects the values, attitudes and priorities of its sociocultural context (Waters & Maynard, 2014) and consequently influences opportunities for outdoor play generally, and approaches to risk and safety in particular. Waters and Maynard (2014) note the differences in the UK policy context. They contrast Scotland’s strong commitment to the provision of outdoor experiences, as evidenced by the publication of a school curriculum for learning outdoors, with the situation in the rest of the UK. Whilst the Welsh government has a similar commitment to the provision of outdoor experiences for children, this is countered to some extent by the content-based outcomes associated with the Foundation Phase curriculum. Waters and Maynard note the even more limited

120

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

prominence given to outdoor learning in the Northern Ireland Foundation Stage curriculum and Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum in England. Similar variations in the status of outdoor learning environments are also outlined in the curriculum documents in other countries. Sandseter (2014) explains that the prominence of outdoor play within Scandinavian early childhood education (ECE) curricula reflects the importance of outdoor life as a core value underpinning Scandinavian ECE provision. Similarly, the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009), National Quality Standards (ACECQA, 2011), and Regulations (ACECQA, 2013) recognize the importance of outdoor play environments as an integral part of the early childhood curriculum with attention given to promoting access to, flexible use of and interaction between indoor and outdoor environments, as well as ensuring that outdoor spaces allow children to explore and experience the natural environment. Similarly, Stephenson (2014) discusses the integral role of the outdoors in the learning environment but notes the shifting focus within the New Zealand context, with changes to licensing criteria having a detrimental impact on children’s free-flow access to the outdoors as well as space allocation for outdoor play provision. The importance of outdoor play appears to be less visible in other curriculum and accreditation documents. For example, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation criteria in the USA requires early childhood services to have a curriculum or curriculum framework that includes the provision of both indoor and outdoor experiences on a daily basis ‘when weather, air quality, and environmental safety conditions do not pose a health risk’ in environments that include natural elements (NAEYC, 2016, p. 50). The accreditation criteria also stipulate that materials and equipment ‘provide for children’s safety while being appropriately challenging’

(NAEYC, 2016, p. 11) and that children are protected in the outdoor area from injury from falls, sharp or protruding points, and tripping and entrapment hazards. Children should also be provided with opportunities to learn safety rules associated with both indoor and outdoor learning spaces (NAEYC, 2016). Notable within all these approaches are the differences in how risk-taking is viewed and the extent to which the emphasis is on safety over the developmental and learning benefits associated with risky play. Few curriculum documents appear to make explicit mention of risk-taking and its role in children’s learning and development. Cevher-Kalburan (2014) notes that the Turkish National Early Childhood Education Program emphasizes creativity, problemsolving and learning through discovery in stimuli-rich learning environments, both indoors and outdoors, but makes no statements in regards to risky play. The New Zealand early childhood curriculum makes mention of children having the confidence to ‘participate and take risks without fear of harm’ (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 52). This is the only explicit mention of risktaking, although in relation to children’s well-being there is reference to programmes providing ‘a balance between events and activities that are predictable and certain and those that provide moderate surprise and uncertainty’ (p. 51). However, generally the benefits of risk-taking are not discussed and the term ‘risk’ is used in the context of children experiencing environments where they are kept safe from harm. In contrast, the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) explicitly acknowledges children’s need to take risks and cope with the unexpected in developing their emerging autonomy, inter-dependence, social-emotional well-being, resilience and sense of agency. Children’s development is supported when educators ‘plan learning environments with appropriate levels of challenge where children are encouraged to explore, experiment and take appropriate

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play

risks in their learning’ (DEEWR, 2009, p. 35). However, as with the New Zealand context, the Australian National Quality Standards (NQS) and Regulations also focus on requirements for children’s safety. These documents discuss the need for effective supervision when children are participating in high-risk activities, as well as the need to monitor hazards and safety risks in the environment and being alert to the potential for injury (ACECQA, 2011). These dual messages within the curriculum framework and quality standards present challenges for early childhood teachers. A recent study by Little (2015) suggests that some teachers felt they now had more autonomy in being able to do their own risk assessments and make a case for some of the experiences they wanted to provide than they did previously. However, for others there was still an issue with the seemingly contradictory messages within the EYLF and NQS where risk-taking is encouraged compared with the emphasis on safety within the Regulations. For these teachers, the effort involved in undertaking a lot of risk assessments meant that it was easier to just keep things ‘safe’. This latter attitude reflects that of teachers in previous studies who felt their practice was constrained by the regulatory environment (Little, 2010). To explore the impact of different regulatory environments, Little, Sandseter and Wyver (2012) considered the beliefs and practices of early childhood teachers in Australia and Norway. Interviews with teachers from both countries revealed that both recognized the importance of risky play for children’s development and well-being, but differences in the way these beliefs are translated into practice were apparent. The Australian teachers identified factors associated with the quality of the outdoor environment, regulatory requirements and a litigious environment as constraints for their teaching practice. Consequently, there was greater focus on compliance with regulations than the provision of challenging play environments for children due to the risks that

121

might be associated with this type of play. In contrast, the Norwegian teachers exercised greater professional judgement in managing children’s risky play and took a more flexible approach. These differences in how external regulations restrict activities and fear of litigation impacts on children’s opportunities for risky play are evident in other countries as well. Waters and Begley (2007) found that the Welsh preschool teachers in their study focused on the negative aspects of risk-taking and felt the need to exert a high level of control in order to ensure the children’s safety and meet curriculum goals. Tovey (2007) found variations in the impact of external regulations on teaching practice. Whilst some English teachers expressed anxiety about the risk-taking behaviour of the children, others openly encouraged risky play. A few studies have examined variations in pedagogical approaches to risky play. Nah and Waller’s (2015) cross-cultural study of pedagogical practices in relation to outdoor play in England and Korea revealed that whilst in both countries outdoor play is emphasized within the curriculum documents, this is not always reflected in practice. Reflecting on each other’s practices, the English and Korean preschool teachers noted very different responses to particular scenarios. For example, the English teachers reflecting on children’s play involving climbing trees and swinging from branches believed that ‘appropriate “risk-taking” and “challenging” behaviours were a necessary disposition for the children to acquire’ (Nah & Waller, 2015, p. 8). The Korean teachers reflecting on the same play behaviours voiced more riskaverse attitudes, focusing on safety, although they did concede there were benefits to be gained from such play, and that Korean children might gain from having the opportunity for greater physical challenges. Another difference that emerged from this study was the way teachers responded to parents’ safety concerns. Although both acknowledged parental concerns, the English teachers were

122

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

more likely to defend their pedagogical decisions whereas the Korean teachers were more likely to adapt their practice to take account of the concerns of parents. Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) considered the influence of different theoretical approaches on the pedagogical practices of early childhood educators in Norway and Australia. The authors argued that the emphasis on dynamic systems theory and Gibsonian-based approaches inherent in Norwegian pedagogical practice supports teachers in achieving a stronger alignment to their risky play beliefs and practices. On the other hand, the focus on sociocultural theory within the Australian EYLF may not provide the same theoretical support for teachers in making decisions about risk-taking in outdoor play since it does not emphasize direct engagement with the environment in order for learning and development the same way the Norwegian approach does. It is apparent from this discussion that there is considerable variation in the way in which risk and safety in outdoor play is viewed. It is also important to note that there is as much variation within particular countries and cultures as there is between them. As the study by Little (2015) illustrates, there are diverse perspectives in teachers’ understanding of risky play as well as inconsistency in the way quality standards and regulations are interpreted and implemented. Furthermore, there is considerable variation in the extent to which teachers feel confident in their ability to manage risks and articulate to regulatory authority assessors their decision-making and rationale for providing children with opportunities for risk-taking.

CONCLUSION Children in most parts of the world have never been safer, and yet many societies have a misguided perception that they are being exposed to unacceptable risks when they

play outdoors. The trend over the last two decades to attempt to remove all risk from activities within our society has paradoxically created risk. Children play to learn. They push their boundaries and, when they do, mistakes happen and injuries occur. The cost of risk in outdoor play is normally measured as a negative. This view only addresses one side of the risk equation. It looks at the injuries and the negative consequences of these injuries. It fails to take into account the benefits of risk and the positive side of the equation (Little & Eager, 2008, 2010). This judgement needs to be made in balancing the likelihood of serious injury with the developmental and health benefits that come from risk-taking in play. As previously discussed, serious injuries are rare in the context of play. Children need to know what is safe and what is unsafe (Eager, 2008). Playing in the safety of their backyard or in a nature play setting is most likely safe. Injuries will and do occur during play in these settings, but this does not mean that backyards and natural play are inherently unsafe. Society’s role is to provide both safeguards and opportunities – limiting exposure to hazards, while maintaining exposure to risks.

REFERENCES ACECQA (2011). Guide to the National Quality Standard. Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. http://acecqa.gov.au/ national-quality-framework/national-qualitystandard. ACECQA (2013). Education and Care Services National Regulations. Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. www. legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/ subordleg+653+2011+cd+0+N. Adams, J. (2001). Risk. London: Routledge. Aldis, O. (1975). Play fighting. New York: Academic Press. Apter, M. J. (2007). Danger: Our quest for excitement. Oxford: Oneworld.

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play

Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 1–11. Ball, D. J. (2002). Playgrounds – Risks, benefits and choices (Vol. 426/2002). London: Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Contract Research Report, Middlesex University. Ball, D. J. (2004). Policy issues and risk-benefit trade-offs of ‘safer surfacing’ for children’s playgrounds. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 661–670. Bekoff, M., & Byers, J. A. (1981). A critical reanalysis of the ontogeny and phylogeny of mammalian social and locomotor play: An ethological hornet’s nest. In K. Immelmann, G. W. Barlow, L. Petrinovich, & M. Main (Eds.), Behavioral development: The Bielefield interdiciplinary project (pp. 296–337). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bienefeld, M., Pickett, W., & Carr, P. A. (1996). A descriptive study of childhood injuries in Kingston, Ontario, using data from a computerized injury surveillance system. Health Canada – Chronic Diseases in Canada, 17(1), 21–27. Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2000). Child development and evolutionary psychology. Child Development, 71(6), 1687–1708. Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bowler, D., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T., & Pullin, A. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456. Boyesen, M. (1997). Den truende tryggheten. PhD dissertation, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Briss, P. A., Sacks, J. J., Adiss, D. G., Kresnow, M.-J., & O’Neil, J. (1995). Injuries from falls on playgrounds. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 149, 906–911. Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., … Tremblay, M. S. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454. Burdette, H. L., & Whitaker, R. C. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking

123

beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(1), 46–50. Bundy, A., Luckett, T., Tranter, P., Naughton, G., Wyver, S., Ragen, J., et  al. (2009). The risk is that there is ‘no risk’: A simple, innovative intervention to increase children’s activity levels. International Journal of Early Years Education, 17(1), 33–45. Byers, J. A., & Walker, C. (1995). Refining the motor training hypothesis for the evolution of play. The American Naturalist, 146(1), 25–40. Cevher-Kalburan, N. (2014). Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of children’s risky play. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(3), 239–260. Chalmers, D. (1999). Playground injury – The kids are still falling for it. Childrenz, 3(2), 29–32. Chalmers, D. (2003). Playground equipment safety standards. Safe Kids News, 21, 4. Chalmers, D., Marshall, S. W., Langley, J. D., Evans, M. J., Brunton, C. R., Kelly, A. M., & Pickering, A. F. (1996). Height and surfacing as risk factors for injury in falls from playground equipment: A case control study. Injury Prevention, 2, 98–104. Davis, R. M., & Pless, B. (2001). BMJ bans ‘accidents’. Accidents are not unpredictable. (Editorial) British Medical Journal, 322(7298), 1320–1321. DEEWR (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations. DiLillo, D., Potts, R., & Himes, S. (1998). Predictors of children’s risk appraisals. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 415–427. Donaldson, L. J. (2000). Sport and exercise: The public health challenge. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(6), 409–410. DSB (1996). FOR 1996-07-19 nr 703: Forskrift om sikkerhet ved lekeplassutstyr. Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning. www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/ldles?doc=/ sf/sf/sf-19960719-0703.html. Eager, D. (2008). Why children need risk. Paper presented at the Paediatric Trauma Seminar, 6 June 2008, Sydney, Australia. Eager, D., & Little, H. (2011). Risk deficit disorder. Paper presented at the International

124

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Public Works Conference, 21–25 August 2011, Canberra, Australia. Eager, D., Little, H., & Nasri, J. (2011). The risk paradox in play. Paper presented at the 18th International Play Association World Conference, 4–8 July 2011, Cardiff, Wales. Fjørtoft, I. (2000). Landscape and playscape. Learning effects from playing in a natural environment on motor development in children. PhD dissertation, Norwegian School of Sport Science, Oslo. Gielen, A. C., & Sleet, D. A. (2006). Injury prevention and behaviour: An evolving field. In A. C. Gielen, D. A. Sleet, & R. J. DiClemente (Eds.), Injury and violence prevention: Behavioral science theories, methods, and applications (pp. 1–16). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. Gill, T. (2007). No fear. Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Gill, T. (2014). The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 10–34. Grahn, P., Mårtensson, F., Lindblad, B., Nilsson, P., & Ekman, A. (1997). Ute på dagis. Alnarp: The University of Agriculture in Sweden. Green, J. (1997). Risk and misfortune – the social construction of accidents. London: UCL Press. Greenfield, C. (2003). Outdoor play – the case for risks and challenges in children’s learning and development. Safekids News, 21, 5. Hackitt, J. (2008). Speech to House of Lords, 8 May 2008. www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/speeches/ transcripts/iosh080508.htm. Hansen, E. B., & Breivik, G. (2001). Sensation seeking as a predictor of positive and negative risk behaviour among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 627–640. Humphreys, A. P., & Smith, P. K. (1987). Rough and tumble, friendship, and dominance in schoolchildren: Evidence for continuity and change with age. Child Development, 58, 201–212. Illingworth, C., Brennan, P., Jay, A., Al-Ravi, F., & Collick, M. (1975). 200 injuries caused by playground equipment. British Medical Journal, 4, 332–334. James, A., & James, A. (2001). Tightening the net: Children, community and control. British Journal of Sociology, 52, 211–228.

Kaarby, K. M. E. (2004). Children playing in nature. Paper presented at the CECDE conference: Questions of Quality, Dublin Castle. Kelley, P., Hood, S., & Mayall, B. (1998). Children, parents and risk. Health and Social Care in the Community, 6, 16–24. Lavrysen, A., Bertrands, E., Leyssen, L., Smets, L., Vanderspikken, A., & De Graef, P. (2015). Risky-play at school: Facilitating risk perception and competence in young children. European Early Childhood Education and Research Journal. Online first, doi: 10.1080/ 1350293X.2015.1102412. Little, H. (2006). Children’s risk-taking behaviour: Implications for early childhood policy and practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2), 141–154. Little, H. (2010). Risk, challenge and safety in outdoor play: Pedagogical and regulatory tensions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 4(1), 3–24. Little, H. (2015). Promoting risk-taking and physically challenging play in Australian early childhood settings in a changing regulatory environment. Journal of Early Childhood Research. Online first, doi: 10.1177/ 1476718X15579743. Little, H., & Eager, D. (2008). Children need risk. Paper presented at the 17th International Play Association World Conference, 8–11 January 2008, Hong Kong. Little, H., & Eager, D. (2010). Risk, challenge and safety: Implications for play quality and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4), 497–513. Little, H., Sandseter, E. B. H., & Wyver, S. (2012). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about children’s risky play in Australia and Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(4), 300–316. Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33–40. Mack, M. G., Hudson, S., & Thompson, D. (1997). A descriptive analysis of children’s playground injuries in the United States 1990–4. Injury Prevention, 3, 100–103. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘Contact with nature’ as an upstream

Risk and Safety in Outdoor Play

health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45–54. Mead, M. (2001 [1931]). Growing up in New Guinea – a comparative study of primitive education. New York: HarperCollins/Perennial Classics. Mikkelsen, M. R., & Christensen, P. (2009). Is children’s independent mobility really independent? A study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/mobile phone technologies. Mobilities, 4(1), 37–58. Ministry of Education (1996). Te Wh¯ariki: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Morrongiello, B. A., Lasenby, J., & Walpole, B. (2007). Risk compensation in children: Why do children show it in reaction to wearing safety gear? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 56–63. Morrongiello, B. A., & Major, K. (2002). Influence of safety gear on parental perceptions of injury risk and tolerance of children’s risk taking. Injury Prevention, 8(1), 27–31. Morrongiello, B. A., Walpole, B., & Lasenby, J. (2007). Understanding children’s injury-risk behavior: Wearing safety gear can lead to increased risk taking. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 618–623. Mowat, D. L., Wang, F., Pickett, W., & Brison, R. J. (1998). A case-control study of risk factors for playground injuries among children in Kingston and area. Injury Prevention, 4, 39–43. Nah, K., & Waller, T. (2015). Outdoor play in preschools in England and South Korea: Learning from polyvocal methods. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 2010–2025. NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children) (2016). NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria & Guidance for Assessment. www.naeyc.org/academy/content/accessnaeyc-accreditation-standards-and-criteria. Nauta, J., Martin-Diener, E., Martin, B., van Mechelen, W., & Verhagen, E. (2015). Injury risk during different physical activity behaviours in children: A systematic review with bias assessment. Sports Medicine, 45(3), 327–336. NMER (2006/2011). Framework plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

125

Peat, F. D. (1996). Blackfoot physics – a journey into the Native American universe. London: Fourth Estate. Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69(3), 577–598. Peterson, L., Gillies, R., Cook, S., Schick, B., & Little, T. (1994). Developmental patterns of expected consequences for simulated bicycle injury events. Health Psychology, 13, 218–223. Phelan, K., Khoury, J., Kalkwarf, H., & Lamphear, B. (2001). Trends and patterns of playground injuries in United States. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 1, 227–233. Play Safety Forum (2002/2008). Managing risk in play provision – position statement. (Republished 2008.) London: National Children’s Bureau. Play Safety Forum (2012). Managing risk in play provision – implementation guide. London: National Children’s Bureau. Potts, R. P., Martinez, I. G., & Dedmon, A. (1995). Childhood risk-taking and injury: Self-report and informant measures. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 20(1), 5–12. Poulton, R., Davies, S., Menzies, R. G., Langley, J. D., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Evidence for a non-associative model of the acquisition of a fear of heights. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 537–544. Poulton, R., & Menzies, R. G. (2002a). Fears born and bred: Toward a more inclusive theory of fear acquisition. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 197–208. Poulton, R., & Menzies, R. G. (2002b). Nonassociative fear acquisition: A review of the evidence from retrospective and longitudinal research. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 127–149. Poulton, R., Menzies, R. G., Craske, M. G., Langley, J. D., & Silva, P. A. (1999). Water trauma and swimming experiences up to age 9 and fear of water at age 18: A longitudinal study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 39–48. Poulton, R., Milne, B. J., Craske, M. G., & Menzies, R. G. (2001). A longitudinal study of the etiology of separation anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1395–1410. Rakison, D. H. (2005). Infant perception and cognition: An evolutionary perspective on

126

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

early learning. In B. J. Ellis & D. F. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 317–353). New York: Guilford Press. Robertson, B. J. (1994). Leisure in the lives of male adolescents who engage in delinquent activity for excitement. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12, 29–46. Rosen, B. N., & Peterson, L. (1990). Gender differences in children’s outdoor play injuries: A review and an integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 187–205. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2007). Categorizing risky play – How can we identify risk-taking in children’s play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 237–252. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009a). Characteristics of risky play. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9(1), 3–21. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009b) Risky play and risk management in Norwegian preschools – a qualitative observational study. Safety Science Monitor, 13(1). Sandseter, E. B. H. (2010). ‘It tickles in my tummy!’ Understanding children’s risk-taking in play through Reversal Theory. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(1), 67–88. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2014). Early years outdoor play in Scandinavia. In T. Maynard & J. Waters (Eds.), Outdoor play in the early years (pp. 114–126). London: The Open University Press. Sandseter, E. B. H., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2011). Children’s risky play from an evolutionary perspective: The anti-phobic effects of thrilling experiences. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(2), 257–284. Sandseter, E. B. H., Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2012). Does theory and pedagogy have an impact on provisions for outdoor learning? A comparison of approaches in Australia and Norway. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 12(3), 167–182. Sawyers, J. K. (1994). The preschool playground. Developing skills through outdoor play. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(6), 31–33. Smith, A. (2002). Interpreting and supporting participation rights: Contributions from

sociocultural theory. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 10, 733–788. Smith, S. J. (1998). Risk and our pedagogical relation to children: On playground and beyond. New York: State University of New York Press. Spiegal, B., Gill, T. R., Harbottle, H., & Ball, D. J. (2014). Children’s play space and safety management. Rethinking the role of play equipment standards. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–11. Stephenson, A. (2003). Physical risk-taking: Dangerous or endangered? Early Years, 23(1), 35–43. Stephenson, A. (2014). Outdoor play in New Zealand centres: Protecting, defending, extending. In T. Maynard & J. Waters (Eds.), Exploring outdoor play in the early years (pp. 127–140). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Stutz, E. (1999). Rethinking concepts of safety and the playground: The playground as a place in which children may learn skills for life and managing hazards. In M. L. Christiansen (Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference of playground safety. Pennsylvania: Penn State University: Center for Hospitality, Tourism & Recreation Research. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Swartz, M. K. (1992). Playground safety. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 6(3), 161–162. Tovey, H. (2007). Playing outdoors: Spaces and places, risk and challenge. Maidenhead: Open University Press. UN (1990). Convention on the Rights of the Child. www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm. Walker, D. (2013). Exercise: Today’s best buy in public health. www.ukactive.com/downloads/ managed/Dr_David_Walker_Deputy_Chief_ Medical_Officer_ukactive_Summit.pdf. Waters, J., & Begley, S. (2007). Supporting the development of risk-taking behaviours in early years: An exploratory study. Education 3–13, 35(4), 365–377. Waters, J., & Maynard, T. (2014). Introduction: Outdoor play in early years settings. In T. Maynard & J. Waters (Eds.), Exploring outdoor play in the early years (pp. 1–13). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

8 The Evolution of Policy on Risk Management in Outdoor Play Tim Gill

INTRODUCTION Children of all ages and abilities are naturally curious. They have an appetite for experience, and an urge to explore and understand. These natural impulses and inclinations are given their fullest expression in children’s play. Moreover, one of the most consistent features of children’s play is the move from what is routine and familiar – and thus potentially boring – to what is less certain, more challenging and more engaging. The prime risk management challenge facing those who oversee children at play is to make sound judgements in the light of these characteristics of children. A connected challenge is to be in a position to justify judgements in the face of possible criticism. This chapter takes a historical approach to exploring these twin challenges. It focuses on children’s outdoor play provision as a revealing case study, but also looks at some other outdoor learning and recreational contexts. It argues that the policies and procedures used for making judgements about risk and safety

in children’s play have historically not been fit for purpose, but that a new approach – risk– benefit assessment (RBA) – is emerging that gives more sound judgements and provides a better framework for policy and practice. The chapter starts with some definitions, followed by a brief history of play provision, and of risk management in play provision. It scrutinizes the evidence base and offers a critique of orthodox approaches. It introduces and explains RBA as the ‘state of the art’. It concludes with a discussion of the reach and influence of the idea, and the key challenges it faces. The chapter draws extensively on the UK publication Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation Guide (henceforth MRPP), written by the author along with David Ball and Bernard Spiegal (Ball et al., 2013).

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS This section defines the terms ‘safe’, ‘hazard’, ‘risk’ and ‘harm’, which are all fundamental

128

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

to the discussion in this chapter. Different people understand and use these terms in different ways, even within the play safety and risk management worlds. The definitions proposed below are adapted from MRPP (see pp. 27–30). They are consistent with authoritative uses in the literature (see Ball and BallKing, 2011: 16–20).

Safe ‘Safe’ or ‘safety’ is perhaps the most commonly encountered term in debates about children and risk, such as: ‘Is this playground/ park/tree safe?’ There is no simple answer to questions like this, because the word ‘safe’ means different things to different people (Ball, 2000). For some people the term ‘safe’ means that there is no risk of harm at all (which is very unlikely). For others it means that the situation complies with industry standards. For some it might mean that the level of risk is below some notional value that is regarded as broadly acceptable. Because of this ambiguity and confusion, this chapter avoids unqualified use of the word ‘safe’ and recommends that providers and others do the same.

Hazard Hazards are potential sources of harm. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE: the UK government’s overarching regulator on health and safety) defines a hazard as ‘anything that may cause harm, such as chemicals, electricity, working from ladders, an open drawer etc.’ (Health and Safety Executive, undated a). Judgements have to be made about whether or not something is a significant hazard; there is no action and no object that may not be hazardous in certain circumstances.

Risk In general use, the word ‘risk’ refers to the probability, likelihood or chance of an

adverse outcome. In risk management contexts, the word tends to include a measure of the seriousness of the adverse outcome, as well as its probability. The HSE defines risk as the chance that ‘somebody could be harmed by […] hazards, together with an indication of how serious the harm could be’ (Health and Safety Executive, undated a). This chapter uses the word ‘risk’ in a neutral way, without implying any judgement about acceptability.

Harm Conventionally, harm is thought of as exclusively negative. However, in daily life we respond to the concept of ‘harm’ in a nuanced way, particularly where children and young people are concerned. The phrase, ‘That’ll teach you!’ is an acknowledgement that selfgenerated harm can be a valuable form of instruction.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PLAY PROVISION While children have played for as long as our species has existed, the history of play provision – public spaces or facilities that are designed for children to play in – goes back little more than a hundred years. The defining historical model for play provision is the public playground: an outdoor space, open to the public, with a collection of structures designed to offer a variety of play opportunities. Public playgrounds have their roots in the urbanization that marked settlements in Europe and North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Burkhalter, 2016: 14; Frost, 2010: 62–110; Moore, 2006: 87; Solomon, 2005: 7–8). In this period, families moved to cities for jobs, child labour laws stopped children from working and urban areas expanded rapidly. It was argued that playgrounds were needed because the

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

urban places children typically played in – the streets in their neighbourhood – were not suitable for them (Roosevelt, 1907). Playgrounds were in effect both an implicit recognition of children’s right to time and space for play, and a substitute for their habitual places of play: the streets. Playgrounds were arguably also a justification for giving those same streets over to vehicles as traffic levels grew (Zelizer, 1994: 33–5). Historically, the basic template of public playgrounds was a collection of structures like swings, roundabouts, slides, climbing structures and sandpits. Variations in design emerged after the Second World War as architects and artists became interested in the form (Solomon, 2005: 22–72) and as adult ideas of novelty became influential (Frost, 2010: 180–3). The first decades of the 21st century have seen a growth in interest in more naturalistic designs, including such features as rocks, logs, planting and changes of level (Frost, 2010: 193–7; Shackell et  al., 2008). Yet these variant designs are comparatively rare; the standard model has remained fairly constant for much of the 20th century and into the 21st. Many of the early urban playgrounds were supervised by paid or volunteer playworkers or play leaders (Frost, 2010: 107; Solomon, 2005: 8). Over the decades the presence of adult custodians has declined, and today it is rare for any but the largest public playgrounds to have any permanent staffed presence. However, after the Second World War the idea of adult supervision was revived and reworked in several new forms beyond the public park and play area. One model was the staffed adventure playground. The prototype adventure playground was Emdrup in Copenhagen, which opened in 1943 (Burkhalter, 2016: 186). Its essential ingredients were a permanent, dedicated indoor and outdoor space, a wide selection of craft and construction materials (the Danish term byggleplats translates as ‘construction playground’), a small team of supportive adults, a welcoming, permissive ethos and a lack

129

of structure to sessions (Kozlovsky, 2008). Between the 1950s and the 1980s, this template evolved and spread to the UK and Germany in some numbers (perhaps peaking at a couple of hundred in England and Wales, for instance, though no definitive figures are available). It also reached other countries, including (in the direct experience of the author) the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and Japan, though in much smaller numbers. Over the same period, other varieties of supervised play services emerged in some countries alongside adventure playgrounds. In the UK and USA, for example, holiday playscheme providers took some of the adventure playground elements – paid staff, use of a variety of sports and games equipment, and craft and construction materials – and made them available to children during holiday periods in settings such as schools or community centres. In the ‘playbus’ model the offer was similar, but the setting was mobile. In a further largely 21st-century UK refinement, ‘play ranger’ services took these ingredients into parks and public green spaces (ColeHamilton and Gill, 2002). For much of the modern era, play provision has arguably had a modest role in shaping most children’s play experiences – certainly for children above around 6–7 years of age. This was because of the freedom they enjoyed to wander around their neighbourhoods unsupervised, allowing them a wide choice of places for play (Wheway and Millward, 1997). However, as children’s independent mobility has declined, so interest in the role of play provision in their lives has grown. The rise of sedentary and screen-based leisure activities – and the resulting concerns about children’s health and development – has arguably magnified adult interest in play and play provision (Ginsburg, 2007; ParticipACTION, 2015; see also Chapter 7, this volume). In sum, the last hundred years or so has seen the play of children in the industrialized world steered away from the streets where

130

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

they live, and encouraged within designated spaces created (and sometimes supervised) by adult institutions and agencies. Because of this, society’s approach to children’s safety at play has also changed. Rather than being mainly the responsibility of their parents, safety at play has become a responsibility shared with these organizations. So how has this responsibility been discharged? The next section looks at how those in charge of play provision have managed risk.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF RISK MANAGEMENT IN PLAY PROVISION Concerns about playground safety have been evident since the early days of the model. American independent scholar Susan Solomon states that in 1912 New York City ‘removed gymnasiums from all of its parks because they were too dangerous’ (Solomon, 2005: 8). Also evident is the view that playground safety should primarily be addressed through the use of a single tool: playground standards – typically for equipment, surfacing and maintenance. In the USA, the first move to create national standards emerged in 1929. This guidance focused on the selection and condition of equipment and the maintenance of spaces. Subsequent guidance also considered surfaces, both in general and underneath equipment – though here questions of durability were addressed alongside those of injury prevention (Frost, 1985). Safety remained a concern during the postwar period of heightened interest in design innovation (Solomon, 2005: 39). US play scholar Joe Frost describes public protests, studies and reports in California and elsewhere in the early 1950s that focused on the alleged safety failings of blacktop and other hard surfaces (Frost, 1985: 17). A point of departure occurred in the 1970s, with the development of comprehensive national (and in time transnational) playground

equipment standards. This was a period when ‘safety guidelines began to take hold and commercial products became dominant’ (Solomon, 2005: 43; see also Burkhalter, 2016: 31). For the next 30 years or more, risk management in play provision has been understood almost entirely in terms of compliance with such standards (Frost, 2010: 224). Voluntary equipment standards emerged in the US in the early 1970s, sponsored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) (Frost, 1985: 19; Frost, 2010: 221). The UK saw a similar shift. The first comprehensive playground standards were published at the end of the 1970s (British Standards Institution, 1979). Playground safety standards for the UK are now Europe-wide and run to 11 volumes, with more planned (British Standards Institution, undated). Australia and New Zealand have a similar standards framework (Cummins and Reedy, 2015). The transnational nature of playground standards is no coincidence. One of their main rationales is the free movement of goods across national boundaries. International standards like those in the European Union are shaped at least as much by the goal of harmonization as by the pursuit of reasonable approaches to managing risk (Spiegal et al., 2014: 4). Regardless of their history, geographical focus, economic rationale or detailed content, all equipment standards share four important features: • A risk reduction rationale: standards are typically framed in terms of injury prevention, with little or no mention of benefits. Hence they do little to challenge the impression that injuries, and indeed risks of any kind, need to be minimized (MRPP: 38). Some versions of equipment standards have, in the past, explicitly stated that benefits or ‘play value’ are not part of their remit. This is an incoherent position, since all equipment involves the acceptance of hazards, and the only justification for such hazards is their contribution to children’s play experiences (MRPP: 38). The 2008 version of the European standard marks a shift in position,

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

stating that play provision ‘should aim at managing the balance between the need to offer risk and the need to keep children safe from serious harm’ (BSI, 2008: 6). • An engineering focus: standards address physical and material features of a feature, facility or item, and do not address how different users may interact in different ways with these features, nor how users may modify their interactions as a result of safety features (Ball, 2002: 6.2; Spiegal et al., 2014: 4; see also Chapter 7, this volume). • Inflexibility: standards are applied in similar ways across a wide range of different settings and contexts. For instance, they are applied in the same way in both school playgrounds (where an adult supervisory presence is typical or constant) and in public play areas (where no adults may be present) (Spiegal et al., 2014: 6). • Objectivity: standards are designed to give objective answers that can be independently verified: safety is framed as a matter of a binary ‘yes/ no’ decision, rather than a question where there may be diverse perspectives or room for debate (Spiegal et al., 2014: 6).

PLAYGROUND INJURIES: THE EVIDENCE BASE Statistics suggest that playing in playgrounds is low-risk compared to other leisure activities. Professor David Ball has comprehensively surveyed the data twice: first, in 1989 (taking in studies from the UK, other European countries, North America and Australasia) and again in 2002 (in a study that focused on the UK). Both surveys found that, overall, the annual probability of a child visiting hospital as a result of an equipmentrelated playground accident was the same: around one in 200 (Ball, 2002: s. 2.1.3; Ball and King, 1989: 88; see also Chapter 7, this volume). By comparison, activities like swimming, rugby and football are more likely to lead to injuries (Ball, 2007: 63; Nauta et al., 2015). More detailed trend data from several countries largely confirms this picture of stability (although one caveat is that studies

131

are not able to take into account children’s exposure, and possible changes in children’s use of playgrounds, due to lack of data). Ball found no obvious overall trend in UK accident rates between 1989 and 1999 (Ball, 2002: s. 2.1.2 and Figure 3). A 2016 US study based on hospital attendance data did find some evidence of a trend, the most significant of which was a rise between 2005 and 2013. However, the study’s authors were unsure of the causes of this rise. They speculated that it could be due to greater awareness of injury risk, and especially head injury risk (Cheng et al., 2016). The shift in approach to playground safety described above has led to substantial investment of public funds. For example, in the UK annual spending on playground surfacing alone has been estimated at between £20 and £50 million (Ball, 2004). The stability of playground injury rates raises questions about the impact and effectiveness of the shift, and about the evidence base behind it. There is an extensive literature on playground safety. Yet very few studies have empirically tested the impact of playground safety interventions such as the implementation of standards. A 2011 systematic review of playground injuries found 86 relevant papers from the previous 10 years. However, only 14 of these papers met the criteria for inclusion in the analysis, while only two were methodologically robust intervention trials of the type that provide the best evidence to support interventions (as would be expected in clinical medicine, for example). A single study showed evidence of injury reduction as a result of modifications to comply with standards (Naeini et al., 2011). Likewise, a 2004 systematic review of papers published between 1966 and 2000 found just two intervention studies, one of which showed a measurable reduction in injury rates (Norton et al., 2004: 103). One further study (not included in Naeini et  al.’s 2011 review) is noteworthy. It studied 28 Ontario schools over 2½ years to compare injury

132

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

rates associated with two different types of playground surfacing that both nominally complied with the relevant standards: sand and engineered wood fibre (an artificial surface). No serious head injuries were recorded throughout the study, though it did find significantly lower rates of arm fracture in playgrounds with sand (Howard et  al., 2009). To the author’s knowledge, no other intervention studies have compared injury rates in playgrounds with different equipment or design approaches. One important addition to the evidence base was a 2015 systematic literature review on the risks and benefits of ‘risky play’. This looked at empirical studies on the risks and benefits of thrilling and exciting play that can include the possibility of physical injury. The researchers concluded that ‘the overall positive health effects of increased risky outdoor play provide greater benefit than the health effects associated with avoiding outdoor risky play’ and advocated ‘supporting children’s risky outdoor play opportunities as a means of promoting children’s health and active lifestyles’ (Brussoni et  al., 2015; see also Chapter 7, this volume).

PROBLEMS AND CRITIQUES Criticism of orthodox approaches to playground safety has focused on five areas. The most significant of these is that they lack balance, focusing too much on the downside of risk, and not enough on the benefits of play experiences with an element of risk. (See Chapter 7, this volume for a discussion of the benefits of risky play.) Second, they fail to recognize the significance of values and understandings, at the level of society and also within sectors and settings. Third, they fail to match up to the complexity of the task. Fourth, their relationship with the law is unclear and poorly understood. Fifth, they are disproportionate. This section explores each of these criticisms in more detail.

Balance As the previous section showed, concern about the safety of playgrounds has been around for almost as long as playgrounds themselves. The concern that playground safety could be taken too far – that playgrounds could be made too safe – is more recent. But it has been evident for some decades. One early critic was playground campaigner Lady Allen of Hurtwood, who in her 1968 book Planning for Play criticized the ‘dull, “safe” playgrounds’ being built at the time (Allen, 1968: 16). Lady Allen’s views on safety were not widely shared. Indeed, through the 1970s and 1980s the main focus of play safety debate was on tackling facilities that were deemed to be dangerous, often as a result of poor construction or maintenance (Fair Play for Children, 1978; Gill, 2007). By the late 1980s some researchers, designers, advocates and playground safety practitioners, echoing Lady Allen’s warnings, questioned the emphasis on safety in playground design and management (Moreland et al., 1985). Doubts were prominent in the proceedings of a major 1995 interdisciplinary, international conference on playground safety. The conference included papers by authors from Australasia, North and South America, Europe and Japan. At least 11 authors from nine different countries expressed doubts or worries about an excessive emphasis on safety (Christiansen, 1995: see papers by Ball, Bernhard, Bouma, Heseltine, Jambor, Jensen, Jones, Richter, Steinberg, Wallach, and Walsh and Case). Perhaps the most pithy expression came from Peter Heseltine, a leading UK play advocate and experienced play inspector with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, who said: We have made playgrounds so monumentally boring that any self-respecting child will go somewhere else to play – somewhere more interesting and usually more dangerous. (Heseltine, 1995: 92)

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

These debates paved the way for play and playground safety advocates to take action to address the issue. The UK has been at the forefront of this move. One early indication of it can be seen in Best Play, an authoritative advocacy document produced by three leading national UK play organizations. This stated that play provision should ‘manage the balance between the need to offer risk and the need to keep children safe from harm’ (National Playing Fields Association et  al., 1999: 18). In the UK, the Play Safety Forum (PSF) – a government advisory body that includes all the leading agencies with an interest in the topic – took up this theme of balance. In 2002 it issued a position statement entitled Managing Risk in Play Provision. The statement has clear messages about the role of risk in children’s well-being and development, sets out the basic principles of a thoughtful, balanced approach to risk, and highlights the role of values and the complexity of the task (Play Safety Forum, 2002). The UK play safety debate was informed by ideas from countries that were apparently less prone to excessive risk aversion. For instance, Danish play advocate and landscape architect Helle Nebelong gave an influential speech criticizing playground standards at a British play conference (Nebelong, 2002). By the turn of the 21st century, doubts about an overemphasis on child safety and its impact on children’s health, learning, development and well-being were spreading beyond the playground safety milieu (Gill, 2007; Guldberg, 2009; Jones, 2007; Lindon, 1999; Tovey, 2007; see also Chapter 7, this volume). Norwegian early years academic Ellen Sandseter (one of the co-authors of the systematic review of ‘risky play’ discussed above) has been researching what she calls ‘risky play’ since 2001, and has published widely on the topic. In 2009, she wrote that children ‘should be allowed to seek and carry out risky play in preschool (as well as in other play situations), and that risk taking should be acknowledged

133

as an important part of children’s play’ (Sandseter, 2009: 104).

The Complexity of the Task When children play, what they do is often hard to predict. Even an apparently simple piece of equipment like a swing or slide can be used in different ways by children of different ages, abilities and inclinations. Indeed, children actively seek out novel ways to play with and on features that have become familiar and boring, often motivated by a wish for greater excitement and challenge. All of which makes risk management in play provision a complex task. This task is made more complex because playground safety features may lead children to take more risks in the belief that they are less likely to get hurt, and may make adults less attentive in their supervision (Ball, 2011: 55; Gill, 2007: 30). This is an example of risk compensation, a pattern of behaviours that children have been shown to exhibit in relation to helmet wearing (Adams, 1995: 14–16; Morrongiello, 2007; see also Chapter 7, this volume). This multifaceted complexity in children’s play creates serious problems for some elements of playground standards. Impact absorbing surfacing, for example, has the potential to give rise to risk compensatory behaviour that could reduce its effectiveness in injury prevention. This view does have some supporting evidence: some studies show a greater prevalence of long-bone fractures from some forms of artificial playground surfaces (Eager et  al., 2008). While the causes are unclear, risk compensation could be a factor. The inflexibility of standards means that they struggle to cope with the enormous variation in children’s play preferences and behaviours. One obvious problem is that older children often look for more challenging play opportunities than younger ones. This may relate to factors such as height,

134

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

speed/complexity of movement, or difficulty in climbing/descending. Equipment standards for these factors typically need to apply to a wide age range, from very young children through to teenagers. This creates a design challenge: equipment that has to be designed to allow for use by younger children may well be too ‘tame’ for older young people (MRPP: 63).

The Legal Context There is a widespread view that playground standards are a legal requirement. In most countries, this view is mistaken. In many jurisdictions there is no primary legislation that focuses explicitly on playground safety. In the UK, for instance, the key laws around risk management are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and various Occupiers’ Liability Acts. These laws set out a clear framework and set of principles for risk management in the workplace and in the wider public realm, including of course playgrounds and other play provision (Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 10). Central to the UK legislative context is the notion of reasonableness. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for instance, states that risks should be reduced until they are ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (MRPP: 20–1; Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 17). Hence in legal terms, playground standards in the UK and similar jurisdictions have the status of good practice guidance. That said, standards should always be considered as part of a risk assessment (as MRPP notes). In practice, standards tend to be seen as the main benchmark of reasonableness in court cases and liability claims (Spiegal et  al., 2014: 8). The continuing influence of standards is partly a result of their role in legal cases and discussions about liability, despite legal arguments to the contrary (MRPP: 24).

The Role of Values Decisions about risks and their management are rarely, if ever, entirely objective, and

rarely, if ever, fully determined by evidence or data (Spiegal et  al., 2014: 6). Decisions about fall heights beneath equipment, for instance, may well be informed by accident statistics or biomechanical data, but they will not be determined by them. Introducing equipment or features at any height is likely to raise the risk of injury, and in any case children can and do have serious accidents from falls on flat surfaces. As already noted, such features are justified by the overall goal or aim of providing engaging play opportunities (Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 136; MRPP: 19).

Proportionality As already discussed, playground standards have led to significant public expenditure on playground accident prevention. It has been argued that some of the safety measures promoted – in particular, playground surfacing – are disproportionate to the risks they are meant to address. The argument takes two forms. The first is that, because the underlying risk is so low, surfacing fails a basic ‘tolerability of risk’ test (as used in UK health and safety policy to justify safety interventions). The second is that surfacing is not justified on cost–benefit grounds; for instance, it does not reflect the decisionmaking approach followed by the UK government (Ball, 2004; see also Heseltine, 1995: 94). None of this is to say that standards have no role. But taken together, the critiques imply that they are not on their own adequate for the task. Neither is conventional risk assessment, because of its unidimensional emphasis on risk reduction.

RISK–BENEFIT ASSESSMENT: THE STATE OF THE ART This section sets out the key features of risk– benefit assessment (RBA), the most fully

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

worked out response to the criticisms described above. It includes a discussion of the application of RBA in staffed/supervised contexts, sometimes referred to as dynamic risk–benefit assessment. RBA is a decision-making tool that explicitly brings together considerations about risks and benefits. At its heart is a single move: the addition to the judgement process (and where appropriate, the documentation) of a question, box or prompt asking about the benefits of the activity, feature, structure or facility that is under consideration. This move is a paradigm shift. Conventional risk assessment can be seen as a push in one direction only – towards greater ‘safety’ (or perhaps better, greater control of hazards). RBA, in contrast, sees risks and benefits as being in tension, and in need of a kind of balancing process. While RBA has been in use in various sectors in different forms for some years, it was the Play Safety Forum (PSF) that promoted it in the field of play safety. A detailed exposition came in 2008 with the publication of MRPP.

Key Features of RBA According to MRPP, the key principles of RBA in relation to play safety are as follows: 1 Risk management should be grounded in an operator’s values, policies and service goals. 2 Risk management belongs with the operator or duty holder, not with external inspectors, insurers, legal advisers or other third parties. 3 Benefits need to be explicitly considered as part of the information-gathering process. 4 Decisions are a matter of striking a balance betweens risks and benefits. 5 RBA should be a narrative process; scoring and risk matrices are unnecessary, and may even interfere with good judgement (see also Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 23–9).

The first principle recognizes that risk management is shaped by values and ethos; as

135

discussed above, it does not take place in a vacuum. The second is simply a statement of the legal position in most or all jurisdictions. This is not to say that there is no place for experts or legal advisers. What it says is that any final decision – which, as noted, is likely to be partly subjective and to do with values as well as facts – properly rests with the provider (MRPP: 20). The third and fourth principles – the explicit consideration of benefits alongside risks in decision-making – are at the heart of RBA, and are what distinguishes it from conventional risk assessment. But while RBA is portrayed as a process of weighing up risks against benefits, the picture is not meant to be taken literally. There is no question of quantifying benefits or risks (MRPP: 45). The fifth principle addresses this question of the use of numerical or scoring processes in assessing risk; it says that they are not helpful in play provision contexts, and should be avoided. It should be noted that this is not an essential feature of RBA. It is possible to devise RBA procedures that ask for risks to be scored as (for instance) low, medium or high in terms of severity of outcome, likelihood of outcome, or both. Indeed, the author has seen RBA forms that take this approach. However, MRPP argues that scoring systems are unhelpful for two reasons. First, their application varies widely depending on the scorer, and may not give reliable results (Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 28–9). Second, they may lead to over-reliance on paperwork and bureaucratic procedures (MRPP: 45). Instead, MRPP sets out a narrative approach to RBA. It consists of answering the following open-ended questions (MRPP: 65): a What are the benefits – for children and young people, and for others? b What are the risks? c What relevant local factors need to be considered? d What are the options for managing the risk, and what are the pros, cons and costs of each? e What precedents and comparisons are there?

136

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

f What is the risk–benefit judgement? g How should the judgement be implemented?

Most of these questions are self-explanatory. But questions (b), (c) and (e) deserve further discussion.

Risks? An assessment of risks is fundamental to all types of risk management, and is enshrined in law in the UK. Yet the task is rarely straightforward. Risks come in many shapes and sizes, as already noted. This is partly because underlying hazards – physical sources of harm – are themselves many and varied. They range from the familiar and easily understood, such as vertical drops or protruding sharp items, through the less familiar – electrical or household chemical hazards, say – to the invisible and barely detectable, such as microscopic particulates or gamma radiation (Adams, 1995). Risk assessment is also complicated by the need to make judgements about the probability and severity of harm alongside judgements about what constitutes a source of harm. Often – but not always – a degree of technical expertise will be needed to inform judgements about risks. For instance, when considering the installation of a permanent tree swing, technical information from a tree specialist about the structural properties and state of health of the tree is likely to be needed. Likewise, information about the structural integrity of a piece of play equipment will feed into a decision about its appropriateness (and where the equipment is certified as compliant with the relevant industry standard, this information will be implicit in the certification). However, technical information may not on its own be enough to provide a definitive decision: it may need further reflection. For example, technical information about the load-bearing capacity of a tree branch may or may not rule out its use (MRPP: 49–55; Play Safety Forum, 2014).

Local Factors? The inclusion of what MRPP calls ‘local factors’ is a recognition of the complexity of decisions about risk. One fundamental consideration in play provision, for instance, is the age range of users. Obviously, a feature or activity may be unacceptably risky for young children to enjoy, yet too tame for older young people. Indeed, it has been suggested that orthodox risk management has led public play facilities to fail to adequately cater for teenagers (MRPP: 63).

Precedents and Comparisons? Prompting about precedents and comparisons is unusual in risk management, where the emphasis tends to be on ‘codes of practice’ or ‘good practice guidance’. Its inclusion by MRPP recognizes that people making judgements often bring to bear experience from a variety of sources, including their own experience of other relevant situations, and the experiences of other providers, and that this body of experience is a legitimate factor to take into account.

DYNAMIC RISK–BENEFIT ASSESSMENT In staffed situations such as schools, out of school/free time facilities, outdoor learning programmes, playwork settings and early years settings, the adults with supervisory responsibility have a key role in the overall risk management process. Their secondby-second judgements about whether, when and how to intervene – labelled dynamic RBA in MRPP – are fundamental to shaping children’s experiences. These interventions are informed by staff’s values and understandings about the goals and objectives of their setting and practice, and are highly sensitive to circumstances.

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

Dynamic RBA is complex, fluid and difficult to document (MRPP: 56). Some organizations have developed analytical tools such as flowcharts and decision trees in an attempt to reveal how decision-making processes might work (Learning through Landscapes, undated). Such analyses may have value in opening up professional discussion. However, there is a debate to be had about the extent to which sound decision-making in dynamic RBA situations can be captured and evidenced. Rather than paperwork or other permanent documentation, a more practical and promising approach may be to emphasize the role of professional competence (as shown through qualifications, experience and evidence of professional development). Good practice in dynamic RBA is also likely to be supported through giving staff opportunities to reflect on their experiences and practice, for instance through debate about minor adverse experiences and ‘near misses’ (Play Safety Forum, 2016).

REACH AND INFLUENCE RBA has had a significant impact on policy and practice within the UK play sector. The writing and publication of MRPP was funded by the government and referenced in its national play strategy (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008: 51). In 2012 the Health and Safety Executive issued its own statement, produced jointly with the PSF, which gave regulatory support to RBA as a sensible approach to risk management in play (Health and Safety Executive, 2012). Since then, MRPP itself has been updated and republished. In Scotland, the Care Inspectorate (the government’s regulatory body for childcare and early years) issued a statement supporting risk–benefit approaches in 2016 (Care Inspectorate, undated), while the Welsh government has policies in place that support RBA (Welsh Government, 2012: 51).

137

RBA has also had a significant influence on risk management in other disciplines, and in countries beyond the UK. It has been taken up by the UK’s growing Forest School movement, which promotes a holistic approach to learning through child-led experiences in outdoor settings (Forest School Association, undated). It is being debated and promoted within the UK outdoor education/adventure activities sectors (Gill, 2010; Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2010: 24; Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 2013). Authoritative guidance that takes a narrative, risk–benefit approach has also been developed for tree safety (National Tree Safety Group, 2011) and visitor safety (Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group, 2012) in the UK. Internationally, the NGO Play Australia published playground safety guidance in 2015 that is based on risk–benefit approaches and that references MRPP (Cummins and Reedy, 2015). In parallel, at least one municipality (City of Campbelltown in South Australia) has adopted a policy implementing RBA (Campbelltown City Council, undated). In Canada in 2015, a group of 14 national NGOs came together to draw up a position statement that emphasizes the value of outdoor play ‘with its risks’. The document, promoted with the strapline ‘the biggest risk is keeping kids inside’, received widespread media coverage in Canada and around the world (ParticipACTION, 2015). This work has already been cited in a precedent-setting legal case in the Supreme Court in British Columbia which rejected a civil claim against a municipality following a playground accident (Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2015). This judgment is a legal precedent only in British Columbia. Its full legal significance is a subject for more detailed debate than is possible in this chapter. But it can and should be seen as an indication of a wider cultural debate on risk that is unfolding in many countries, as well as supporting the view that

138

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

a balanced approach to risk in children’s play and learning is both reasonable and defensible in law.

CHALLENGES It is clear that risk–benefit approaches are spreading. RBA is being taken up by providers, policy-makers and advocates in play and learning contexts around the world. And similar approaches are emerging in related sectors. Moreover, it has met with few objections on either empirical or theoretical grounds. However, significant challenges lie ahead (on top of the challenge of changing the culture and climate of organizations and legal and regulatory processes). One continuing challenge is the fear of liability and loss of reputation. This fear has led to a fundamental shift in risk management over recent decades. Rather than focusing on the primary risks – in the case of play provision, the risk of injury to users – service providers tend to focus on secondary risks such as the risk of litigation (Power, 2004). This in turn leads providers to try to offload or transfer these risks to third parties such as designers, inspectors or manufacturers. This move invariably creates tensions, because these third parties are not in a position to make the judgements that come with balancing risks and benefits (MRPP: 92). Secondary risk management drives a related challenge: the demand in some jurisdictions for accountability and paper trails. This demand is not just a problem for RBA, which is neutral on the question of documentation. An enthusiastic bureaucrat can generate RBAs that are just as disproportionately detailed as some conventional risk assessments. Nonetheless, more guidance is needed on this topic, which is a focus for regulatory concern. In the UK, for example, the HSE has made pronouncements about the problem of ‘useless paperwork mountains’ (Health and Safety Executive, undated b). Yet it offers

little guidance on what level of documentation is appropriate. At the same time, the main message from liability claims and court cases is that, in the event of an accident, what matters is precisely the documentation (Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 147). Anxieties about litigation and loss of reputation are likely to be particularly high in the aftermath of a tragedy. Regulators and decision-makers can be pushed into simplistic reactions in response to extreme and rare events (and playground fatalities clearly fall into this category). Yet emotional reactions make the task of choosing effective, proportionate responses more difficult (Better Regulation Commission, 2006: 11). A third challenge to RBA is the expansion in the scope and role of industry standards for play equipment. The content of standards has grown steadily in recent decades (Frost, 2010: 224; Gill, 2007: 30). So has their influence (again, often a response to fears about litigation, even though compliance with standards is not a watertight defence against legal action). Decisions that previously might have been left to local decision-making (such as requirements for fencing around specific pieces of equipment) are now set down in standards. This reduces the scope for providers to make their own judgements, even in contexts where standards are not a legal or regulatory requirement (Spiegal et al., 2014; see also Chapter 7, this volume). There are signs of a slowing-down in the reach and influence of standards. The 2008 revision of the European Standard relaxed a key compliance issue: the use of grass as an impact attenuating surface (British Standards Institution, 2008: 36 and National Foreword). In 2015, after sustained international pressure, the American standards body ASTM did not pass a proposal to raise a key performance criterion for the impact absorbency of surfacing (Gill, 2015). And the 2015 revision of the standards for Australia and New Zealand is more permissive in some key areas, including fall heights and surfacing requirements (Elizabeth Cummins, personal

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

139

communication). Nonetheless, the picture is not entirely clear. For instance, debates are ongoing in North America around the development of design standards for natural features such as boulders and fallen trees (Mariana Brussoni, personal communication). A final challenge is that the rationalistic, evidence-based model that lies behind many forms of risk management – including RBA – may not fit well with much of human decision-making. Some psychologists argue that emotions, tacit assumptions and processes that are beyond conscious awareness lie behind many of the decisions we make, including decisions about how we deal with risks (Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 109–12). This is not to say that rationalistic processes are of no value. But it does raise questions about what a good approach to risk management looks like, and it suggests that greater recognition may be needed of the value of relevant experience (as noted above in the discussion about dynamic RBA). That said, the flexibility and narrative approach to RBA that is set out in MRPP can accommodate a range of types of evidence and argument.

play milieu, and is spreading to other countries and sectors in education and recreation. While further challenges lie ahead, it is set to consolidate its position as an effective, appropriate tool for the task of making sound judgements in the complex territory that is children’s play provision. It has been argued that RBA is in fact closer to the way that many public safety decisions are reached than conventional risk assessment. One survey of the academic literature found ‘RBA, and its variants, constituted a widely used tool’, particularly in healthcare to decide on new drugs and medical interventions (where the need to consider cost and side-effects alongside benefits is clear). It has also been applied to such topics as food safety, mobile phone use while driving, avalanche protection, arsenic in drinking water and the lifetime of space satellites in orbit. Indeed, it has been suggested that rather than RBA being seen as radical or innovative, it should be seen as the norm, with the real question being why decision-making around public safety has so often departed from this norm (Ball and Ball-King, 2011: 102–3).

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

Historically, risk management in playgrounds, typically based on compliance with equipment standards, has focused on injury prevention and risk reduction. Orthodox approaches have been found wanting in the face of growing concern about risk aversion in children’s play and learning, and its impact on children’s health, well-being and development. They have been criticized for being inflexible and disproportionate, have struggled to cope with complexity and the idea of beneficial risk, have failed to recognize the role of values, and have been found to have an opaque relationship to the law. Risk–benefit assessment (RBA) has evolved in direct response to these criticisms. It has become well established in the UK

Adams, J. (1995) Risk. London: UCL Press. Allen, M. (1968) Planning for Play. London: Thames and Hudson. Ball, D.J. and King, K. (1989) A Holistic Approach to Accident and Injury Prevention in Children’s Playgrounds. London: LSS. Ball, D.J. (2000) ‘Ships in the night and the quest for safety’. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 7: 83–96. Ball, D.J. (2002) Playgrounds – Risks, Benefits and Choices. Sudbury: HSE Books. Ball, D.J. (2004) ‘Policy issues and risk–benefit trade-offs of “safer surfacing” for children’s playgrounds’. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36 (4): 661–70. Ball, D.J. (2007) ‘Risk and the demise of children’s play’. In B. Thom, R. Sales and J. Pearce (eds), Growing Up with Risk. Bristol: Policy Press.

140

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Ball, D.J. and Ball-King, L. (2011) Public Safety and Risk Assessment: Improving Decision Making. Abingdon: Routledge. Ball, D.J., Gill, T. and Spiegal, B. (2013) Managing Risk in Play Provision: Implementation Guide, 2nd edn. London: National Children’s Bureau. Better Regulation Commission (2006) Risk, Responsibility and Regulation: Whose risk is it anyway? London: Better Regulation Commission. British Standards Institution (1979) Play Equipment Intended for Permanent Installation Outdoors: Part 2, Recommendations for minimizing hazards in equipment (BS 5696). London: British Standards Institution. British Standards Institution (2008) Playground Equipment: Part 1, General safety requirements and test methods (BS EN 1176–1). London: British Standards Institution. British Standards Institution (undated) BSI website: http://shop.bsigroup.com (accessed 29 March 2016). Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E.B.H., Bienenstock, A., Chabot, G., Fuselli, P., Herrington, S., Janssen, I., Pickett, W., Power, M., Stanger, N., Sampson, M. and Tremblay, M.S. (2015) ‘What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review’. International Journal for Environmental Research and Public Health, 12: 6423–54. Burkhalter, G. (2016) The Playground Project. Zürich: JRP Ringier. Campbelltown City Council (undated) Playground and exercise equipment development and maintenance policy. Care Inspectorate (undated) Positive approach to risk in play. www.careinspectorate.com/ index.php/guidance/9-professional/2961positive-approach-to-risk-in-play (accessed 21 June 2016). Cheng, T.A., Bell, J.M., Haileyesus, T., Gilchrist, J., Sugerman, D.E. and Coronado, V.G. (2016) ‘Nonfatal playground-related traumatic brain injuries among children, 2001–2013’. Pediatrics, 137 (6) [online]. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-2721. Christiansen, M. (ed.) (1995) Playground Safety: Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference. University Park, PA: Penn State University.

Cole-Hamilton, I. and Gill, T.R. (2002) Making the Case for Play: Building Policies and Strategies for School-Aged Children. London: National Children’s Bureau. Cummins, E. and Reedy, A. (2015) Getting the Balance Right: Risk Management for Play. Melbourne: Play Australia. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) The Play Strategy. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Eager, D., Nixon, J. and Yearley, D. (2008) ‘Impact attenuation: The case for natural materials’. Presented at the 17th International Play Association World Conference, Hong Kong. Fair Play for Children (1978) Danger on the Playground. London: Fair Play for Children. Forest School Association (undated) Full principles and criteria for good practice. www. forestschoolassociation.org/full-principlesand-criteria-for-good-practice/ (accessed 4 December 2016). Frost, J.L. (1985) ‘History of playground safety in America’. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 2: 13–23. Frost, J.L. (2010) A History of Children’s Play and Play Environments: Toward a Contemporary Child-Saving Movement. Routledge, New York. Gill, T.R. (2007) No Fear: Growing Up in a Risk Averse Society, Illustrated edition. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Gill, T.R. (2010) Nothing Ventured … Balancing Risks and Benefits in the Outdoors. English Outdoor Council. Gill, T.R. (2015) ‘ASTM playground safety proposal defeated – but it could yet return’. https://rethinkingchildhood.com/2015/05/25/ astm-playground-surfacing-proposal-defeatreturn/. Ginsburg, K.R. (2007) ‘The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds’. Pediatrics, 119 (1): 182–91. Guldberg, H. (2009) Reclaiming Childhood. Abingdon: Routledge. Health and Safety Executive (2012) Children’s Play and Leisure – Promoting a Balanced Approach. www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/childrens-playjuly-2012.pdf (accessed 18 February 2017). Health and Safety Executive (undated a) Risk assessment. Controlling the risks in the

POLICY ON RISK MANAGEMENT IN OUTDOOR PLAY

workplace. www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controllingrisks.htm (accessed 29 March 2016). Health and Safety Executive (undated b) Sensible risk management. www.hse.gov.uk/risk/ principles.htm (accessed 12 April 2016). Heseltine, P. (1995) ‘Safety versus play value’. In: Playground Safety: Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference, Penn State University. Howard, A.W., Macarthur, C., Rothman, L., Willan, A. and Macpherson, A.K. (2009) ‘School playground surfacing and arm fractures in children: A cluster randomized trial comparing sand to wood chip surfaces’. PLoS Med, 6 (12): e1000195. Jones, D. (2007) Cotton Wool Kids. Coventry: HTI. Kozlovsky, R. (2008). ‘Adventure playgrounds and postwar reconstruction’. In M. Gutman and N. Coninck-Smith (eds), Designing Modern Childhoods: History, Space, and the Material Culture of Children: An International Reader. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Lady Allen of Hurtwood (1968) Planning for Play. London: Thames & Hudson. Learning and Teaching Scotland (2010) Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning. Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland. Learning through Landscapes (undated) Dynamic Risk-Benefit Assessment Procedure. www.ltl.org.uk/spaces/documents/DynamicRiskBenefit.pdf (accessed 18 February 2017). Lindon, J. (1999) Too Safe for Their Own Good: Helping Children Learn about Risk and Lifeskills. London: National Early Years Network. Moore, R. (2006) ‘Playgrounds: A 150-year-old model’. In H. Frumkin, R.J. Geller, L.I. Rubin and J. Nodvin (eds), Safe and Healthy School Environments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moreland, G.M., McIntyre, S., Iacofano, D.S. and Goltsman, S.M. (1985) ‘The risky business of children’s play: Balancing safety and challenge in programs and environments for all children’. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 2: 24–8. Morrongiello, B.A., Walpole, B. and Lasenby, J. (2007) ‘Understanding children’s injury-risk behavior: Wearing safety gear can lead to increased risk taking’. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39 (3): 618–23.

141

Naeini, H.S., Lindqvist, K., Jafari, H.R., Mirlohi, A.H. and Dalal, K. (2011) ‘Playground injuries in children’. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, 2: 61–8. National Playing Fields Association, PLAYLINK, Children’s Play Council (1999) Best Play: What Play Provision Should Do for Children. London: National Playing Fields Association. National Tree Safety Group (2011) Common Sense Risk Management of Trees. London: Forestry Commission. Nauta, J., Martin-Diener, E., Martin, B.W., van Mechelen, W. and Verhagen, E. (2015) ‘Injury risk during different physical activity behaviours in children: A systematic review with bias assessment’. Sports Medicine, 45 (3): 327–36. Nebelong, H. (2002) Speech to the Designs on Play conference, Portsmouth. Norton, C., Nixon, J. and Sibert, J.R. (2004) ‘Playground injuries to children’. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 89 (2): 103–8. ParticipACTION (2015) ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto, Ontario. www.participaction. com/en-ca/thought-leadership/report-card/ archive?year=2015. Play Safety Forum (2002) Managing Risk in Play Provision: A Position Statement. London: National Children’s Bureau. Play Safety Forum (2014) Risk-Benefit Assessment Form: Worked Example. Edinburgh: Play Scotland. Play Safety Forum (2016) Dynamic Risk-Benefit Assessment. Position statement. https:// playsafetyforum.wordpress.com/statement/. Power, M. (2004) The Risk Management of Everything: Rethinking the Politics of Uncertainty. London: Demos. Roosevelt, T. (1907) Quoted in San Francisco Call 21 February. California Digital Newspaper Collection. http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc? a=d&d=SFC19070221.2.40 (accessed 29 March 2016). Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (2013) Planning and Leading Visits and Adventurous Activities. Birmingham: Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Sandseter, E.B.H. (2009) ‘Children’s expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10: 92–106.

142

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Shackell, A., Butler, N., Doyle, P. and Ball, D. (2008) Design for Play: A Guide to Creating Successful Play Spaces. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Solomon, S.G. (2005) American Playgrounds: Revitalizing Community Space. Lebanon: University Press of New England. Spiegal, B., Gill, T.R., Harbottle, H. and Ball, D.J. (2014) ‘Children’s play space and safety management’. SAGE Open 4, 2158244014522075. Supreme Court of British Columbia (2015) Thompson v. Corp. of the District of Saanich, 2015 BCSC 1750. Victoria, BC.

Tovey, H. (2007) Playing Outdoors: Spaces and Places, Risks and Challenge. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Visitor Safety in the Countryside Group (2012) Managing Visitor Safety in the Countryside, 2nd ed. York: York Publishing Services. Welsh Government (2012) Play Sufficiency Assessment Toolkit. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Wheway, R. and Millward, A. (1997) Child’s Play: Facilitating Play on Housing Estates. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing. Zelizer, V.A.R. (1994) Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

9 Outdoor Play Spaces in Canada: As if Children Mattered Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle and Mariana Brussoni

OUTDOOR PLAY IN A CANADIAN CONTEXT In Canada, a myriad of social and political practices have limited children’s opportunities for outdoor play and the types of play spaces we design for children. ‘Intensive parenting’, in which parents have close involvement in and control of children’s lives to ensure that they reach their full potential (Einboden, Rudge, & Varcoe, 2013; Shirani, Henwood, & Coltart, 2012; Wall & Arnold, 2007; Zelizer, 1985), has shifted values regarding children and the outdoor play spaces where they play. The conception of the child as resilient has been replaced with the image of the child as vulnerable and in need of constant protection. Free play, once viewed as the primary work of childhood, is now often considered a detraction from involvement in academic enrichment programmes deemed more critical to a child’s future achievements. Likewise, changing

perceptions of risk have led to expectations that risks can and should be avoided (Ball & Ball-King, 2011; Green, 1999). These pressures have heightened expectations regarding appropriate levels of supervision, as well as reduced the availability of free time to engage in outdoor unstructured and unsupervised play (Clements, 2004; Gaster, 1991; Hofferth, 2009; Karsten, 2005; Malone, 2007). Added to this situation, when children are permitted to play outdoors, the extent of their geographical boundaries for play has been reduced compared to previous generations of children. Wridt (2004) analysed autobiographies of residents’ use of outdoor public spaces when they were between the ages of 11 and 13 from the 1930s to early 2000s. She found a decreasing amount of experiences in parks and playgrounds as the decades passed. Clements (2004) surveyed 830 mothers and found that in the first decade of the twenty-first century, children spent significantly less time playing outdoors and participated in more adult organized activities

144

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

than the previous generation. Using global positioning systems (GPS) worn by 143 9- to 13-year-old children in London, Canada, researchers found that on average 94.5 per cent of the participants’ time was spent within a short distance (less than 400m) of their homes and that they spent only a very small portion of their time in the larger neighbourhood context (Loebach & Gilliland, 2014). Even when children are allowed to play in spaces designed expressly for them, the time, space and quality of these places is limited. Compared to schools in other countries, North American schools in general provide shorter and less frequent recess times. Children in most Canadian elementary schools are given two 15-minute recesses per school day. Children’s limited outdoor play time at school not only reduces opportunities to make friends on their own and engage in free play, but may also hinder classroom learning as recess contributes to cognitive, emotional and social development as well as adjustment to school (Fagerstrom & Mahoney, 2006; Haapala et al., 2014; Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 2010; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993; Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010; Waite-Stupiansky & Findlay, 2001). In Finland, children are typically given a 15-minute break after every 45 minutes of classroom instruction (Haapala et al., 2014). In Britain, children are provided two breaks for the school day: children 5–7 years old have 93 minutes of break time, 83 minutes for children 7–11 years old and 77 minutes for children 11–16 years old (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005). Despite Canada’s geographic expanse as the second largest country in the world, the amount of space dedicated to children’s play is small in comparison to countries like Norway, particularly for outdoor play spaces at childcare centres. While researchers found that outdoor play spaces in Oslo were shrinking for children, the minimum allocation per child was 24m2 (Nilsen & Hägherhäll, 2012). In Canada, most communities dedicate more space to a parked car than to a child. The

average parking stall is 14m2, while each fulltime enrolled child in care is typically allocated 7m2 of outdoor play space (Community Care and Assisted Living Act, 2007). This minimum standard is considerably less than Oslo’s allocation, and it is prevalent throughout North America. This fact has not escaped Early Childhood Educators (ECE) who work in Vancouver’s childcare centres. When asked to evaluate the outdoor play spaces at their centres, 64 per cent wanted more space and 57 per cent thought the children needed more challenge (Herrington, 2008). The size of an outdoor play space is only one factor contributing to its quality. Researchers have identified the importance of the physical layout of play spaces, what the play spaces contain, the amount of material that can be manipulated by the children and opportunities for that all-important ingredient – challenge and risk (Refshauge, Stigsdotter, Lamm, & Thorleifsdottir, 2013; Woolley, 2008). In particular, the importance of natural elements within children’s play spaces has been identified. A systematic review examining the benefits of children’s engagement with natural elements and in natural settings found that this experience was associated with greater physical activity, mental health, emotion regulation, motor fitness, environmental knowledge and longterm pro-environment attitudes (Gill, 2014). Children’s play with natural elements or in natural settings is more complex, diverse and lasts longer than play in equipment-based playgrounds (Drown & Christensen, 2014; Luchs & Fikus, 2013; Samborski, 2010; Sargisson & McLean, 2012). Play in nature also increases moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Coe, Flynn, Wolff, Scott, & Durham, 2014) and light to moderate physical activity among children (Dyment & Bell, 2008). It fosters self-determination (Kochanowski & Carr, 2014) and helps children with emotional and behavioural problems (Maller & Townsend, 2006; Roe & Aspinall, 2011). Natural play environments are also more gender neutral and offer more gender equity

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

in opportunities for play (Änggård, 2011; Lucas & Dyment, 2010). Risky play opportunities are also beneficial to children’s health and development. A recent systematic review found overall positive effects of risky outdoor play on children’s health, including increased physical activity, reduced sedentary behaviour and the promotion of social health and behaviours (Brussoni et al., 2015). Other research has suggested that risky play promotes risk management competence, self-esteem, motor skills, social behaviour and independence (Hüttenmoser, 1995; Lavrysen, Bertrands, Leyssen, Smets, Vanderspikken, & De Graef. Chapter 7 in this volume, by Sandseter, Little, Ball, Eager, & Brussoni, provides a summary of the evidence on risky play.) Unfortunately, it has been difficult to apply this research to the design of outdoor play spaces in Canada because these spaces almost exclusively focus on fixed equipment, which minimize risk-taking and natural elements in the play experience. One of the factors that has had a major impact on public play space design in Canada has been the development and widescale application of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Children’s Playspaces and Equipment standards. The CSA standards were first introduced in 1990 with a succession of updated versions in 1998, 2003, 2007 and 2014. The CSA standards are voluntary and must be purchased, but there is often a misperception that they are a governmental publication. An unintended result is their adoption by numerous Canadian communities as policy and their use in litigation cases involving playground injuries. The widespread use of standards is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the main goals of the standards are to provide ‘[g]uidance on requirements for the type of materials and equipment that promote optimal safety in playspace layout’ (Canadian Standards Association, 2014), and to ‘enhance trade and help make industry more competitive in the global marketplace’ (Canadian Standards Association,

145

2016). They are not intended to address play value or child development. Their use as design guidelines has meant that they have been implemented beyond the scope of their remit (Spiegal, Gill, Harbottle, & Ball, 2014). Second, since the standards focus on structures, equipment and surfacing materials (Canadian Standards Association, 2014), an unfortunate and unintended effect has been the creation of outdoor play spaces that consist of primarily equipment rather than natural play elements – what the landscape researcher Helen Woolley calls Kit, Fence, Carpet, or KFC (Woolley & Lowe, 2013). These KFC play spaces are rated as having the fewest opportunities for play compared to play spaces incorporating natural elements and risk-taking. Third, the value of standards as a mechanism for injury prevention has not been proved, despite their intention to promote ‘safety’. At the time of Children’s Playspaces and Equipment standards’ inception, Canadian injury experts found injury levels on outdoor play spaces were not significantly high, yet the CSA referenced US injury data to justify the need for standards (Herrington & Nicholls, 2007). Spiegel et al. (2014) document similar misinterpretations of injury statistics in Britain to justify recommendations for surface absorbing materials in order to prevent head injuries. The injury data are clear in indicating the rarity of head injuries. For example, studies that have collected playground injury statistics across entire school districts in Canada and New Zealand have not documented any head injuries (Howard, Macarthur, Rothman, Willan, & Macpherson, 2009; Rubie-Davies & Townsend, 2007). A US study of playground-related head injuries between 2001 and 2013 found rates indicating that an elementary school with 500 students would experience one emergency department visit every 5–6 years, and a city of 700,000 would experience one hospitalization every year (Cheng et al., 2016). Fractures are by far the most common cause of hospitalization due to a fall from play equipment

146

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

(Sherker & Ozanne-Smith, 2004; Vollman, Witsaman, Comstock, & Smith, 2009). Serious injuries from playground-related incidents continue to be rare, with research indicating that children are more likely to get a medically attended injury while engaged in sports than while playing, when time spent playing is taken into account (Nauta, MartinDiener, Martin, van Mechelen, & Verhagen, 2015).

DESIGNING OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES AS IF CHILDREN MATTERED The research supporting the importance of outdoor risky play with natural elements gets lost with the focus on equipment-based playgrounds, the fear of children’s injuries and the potential for litigation. Despite this difficult situation, in Canada over the past decade a concerted effort has been made to create better play spaces with children’s needs in mind. A 2014 online survey suggests that general attitudes may be shifting away from prioritizing equipment and safety, to a more holistic consideration of children’s play space design that accounts for children’s developmental and health needs. Of the 592 adult respondents, 69 per cent believed contemporary playgrounds to be too safe and lacking challenges (Brunelle, Coghlan, Herrington, & Brussoni, 2016). Furthermore, when asked about their childhood memories of favourite outdoor play spaces, a majority of respondents (59 per cent) said that they had preferred natural play spaces and elements, and overwhelmingly listed natural elements, such as sticks, logs and vegetation, as their favourite features of outdoor play.

Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play A number of initiatives have begun from a diversity of Canadian sectors to improve

outdoor play for children. These sectors include academic researchers, designers, knowledge translation groups and environmental organizations that draw from the expertise of landscape architecture, child development, education and health promotion. The Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play (ParticipACTION Canada, 2015; Tremblay et  al., 2015), released in June 2015 by a consortium of academics and Canadian organizations, represents the most recent and visible milestone in these efforts. To develop the Position Statement, broad multidisciplinary input was sought regarding the findings of two systematic literature reviews on the health benefits of risky play (Brussoni et  al., 2015) and outdoor time (Gray et al., 2015). In reaction to the findings of these two reviews, a national consensus group met to discuss research evidence and develop content for a position statement. An online survey, completed by 1,908 respondents, was used to solicit comments on the draft position statement. The final position statement was launched as part of a large-scale public relations campaign led by ParticipACTION, a national non-profit organization whose mission is to help Canadians sit less and move more. It resulted in extensive media coverage across Canada, including almost 1,000 news stories and 300 million media impressions. At the time of this writing, 279 individuals and organizations had signed on as supporters of the Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play (Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, 2015). Tim Gill, a leading UK advocate for children’s play, notes parallels between the Canadian Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play and the 2002 UK Play Safety Forum’s position statement (Play Safety Forum, 2002, 2008). This document and surrounding advocacy influenced the ethos with respect to risk in play in the UK, such that in 2012 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – the UK’s safety regulator – recognized the importance of play, and opportunities for

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

risk through play, in order to help prepare children for adulthood (Ball, 2014; Spiegal et al., 2014). Gill reports that their guide promoting risk–benefit assessments has been endorsed by the HSE and is gaining use throughout the UK (Gill, 2015). The All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood’s recently released report on play highlighted the importance of supporting children’s experience of risk and challenge (UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood, 2015). They recommended professional training in risk–benefit assessment for all educators, local authorities and inspectors, public-information initiatives to increase parents and professionals’ awareness of risk–benefit assessments, as well as mechanisms for challenging questionable decisions limiting children’s play made in the interest of ‘health and safety’. While it is still too soon to determine the impact of the Canadian Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play, it was recently introduced as evidence in a case presented to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in which it was used as ‘social fact’ evidence that ‘rules and regulations designed to prevent injuries and reduce tort liability have become excessive and counter-productive to youth health and fitness’ (Baird, 2015, p. 5). The case that prompted the suit was dismissed, with the judge concluding that the District was not at fault for the injury the child received while playing in its care. Some Canadian municipalities have shifted their approach to risk in play. The Corporation of Delta, BC, has offered up to $10,000 in playground funding to schools ‘[t]o encourage the reintroduction of risk through natural play elements’ (Corporation of Delta Parks Recreation and Culture Department, 2015, p. 3). The City and District of North Vancouver, through the North Vancouver Recreation & Culture Commission, has approached risk in play from multiple angles: an audit of policies, guidelines and services with community and recreation centres and services to eliminate or modify excessively

147

protective and unnecessary regulations; a rethink of the play elements within parks and playgrounds; and redesign of recreational service offerings to incorporate principles of risky play and to enable free, unstructured play. In an attempt to address some of the barriers that municipalities, schools and other play providers face in managing risk in play, work is under way to adapt the UK Play Safety Forum’s risk–benefit assessment approach to the Canadian legislative landscape. The Child and Nature Alliance of Canada has incorporated a modified version within its Forest Schools Canada programme. In addition to running a forest school in Ottawa, Forest Schools Canada offers training and certification to practitioners from across the country, thereby disseminating this approach nation-wide. Further challenges remain to shift Canadian attitudes toward children’s outdoor play. However, the Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play and its influence on the policy-related dimensions of children’s outdoor play demonstrates an openness to include multidisciplinary research evidence. This research, which stresses the importance of risky play and play with natural elements, promises to improve children’s outdoor play opportunities. The Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play represents one tool that has been useful in advocating for change. Another instrument that has been helpful in shaping the quality of outdoor play spaces has been the ‘Seven Cs’ design guidelines.

The Seven Cs The Outside Criteria study, a 5-year exam­ ination of the outdoor play spaces at childcare centres in Vancouver, identified the physical characteristics of these environments that contribute to early childhood development. The results of this study, combined with findings from a review of the literature concerning landscapes designed for

148

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

children, were compiled into the Seven Cs Informational Guide for Young Children’s Play Spaces (Herrington, Lesmeister, Nicholls, & Stefiuk, 2007). The Seven Cs (Character, Context, Connectivity, Clarity, Chance, Change and Challenge) have been used in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia and Iran (Herrington, 2012; Mountain, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Nature Play Western Australia, n.d.; Sajadi & Khoshnevis, 2016). In terms of a North American context, introducing the Seven Cs to outdoor play space design means a call for more natural materials in the play space including plants, boulders, bricks, sand, logs and other items not normally associated with Canadian playgrounds. Arranging these materials based on the Seven Cs guidelines can heighten play value, increase the amount of challenge and healthy risktaking in play, and contribute to more natural material in the play space (Herrington et al., 2007). Each element of the Seven Cs is outlined in the following paragraphs, illustrated by three different types of outdoor play spaces recently created in British Columbia. The first example, the Garden City Play Environment, is a permanent urban park connected to a nearby school. Designed by Space2Place Landscape Architects, using the Seven Cs and clay work with local children, the park was one of the first of its kind in Canada. It won the 2009 Award of Excellence from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, a National Merit Award in the category of Design, and the British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association Parks and Open Spaces Award. Terra Nova Park, the second example, is a permanent park located in a rural area of Richmond. Designed by landscape architects at the Hapa Collaborative, who incorporated the Seven Cs in their design process, this park’s design makes a concerted effort to provide challenge for older school-aged children. The third example involves the Risky Play Meets Nature Play research project, which is a semi-permanent play installation that

was designed by Sara Brunelle while a landscape architecture student at the University of British Columbia, using the Seven Cs. It is part of a study conducted by the authors. Since childcare centres are usually limited in their funding options, the goal was to employ inexpensive play installations that could be potentially adopted by other centres.

Designing for Character Character refers to the general feel of the outdoor play space, including the condition it is in and the quality of the play elements within it. Ideally, the materials that make up the space contribute to a sense of overall softness and provide children with a multisensorial experience that is not only rich in stimuli but has distinct sensory values that stimulate different senses – touch, smell, sound and sight. Creating a sense of ‘softness’ in the play space can be achieved by adding a range of vegetative and porous material such as grass, sand, dirt, water and wood chips. These elements have tactile qualities that contribute to creating a stimulating and engaging space where children are encouraged to explore the consistency of materials (compact, malleable, slippery, soft, hard), understand their tactile qualities (hot, cold, wet, dry, smooth, rough) and observe their movement (brusque, gentle, rhythmic). These elements can also contribute to expanding the colour and textural palette and help to balance the light quality of the play space. Figure 9.1 shows the childcare outdoor play space for the Risky Play Meets Nature Play project before the installation. Figure 9.2 displays the play space after the intervention. The character of the play space has changed, with plant materials creating ‘softness’ and contributing to a stimulating and engaging play space.

Designing for Context Designing with context in mind means considering how the play space interacts with

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

149

Figure 9.1  Risky Play Meets Nature Play project before the installation (Photo: Sara Brunelle).

Figure 9.2  Risky Play Meets Nature Play project after the installation (Photo: Sara Brunelle).

the surrounding landscape. In general, playground design has little regard for local character and provides few opportunities for children to interact independently with the

surrounding space (Woolley, 2008). While this is often a reaction to traffic and other perceived dangers, when possible, offering children the opportunity for views out of the

150

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

play space, as well as opportunities to safely interact with neighbours, is a way to expand the playground beyond its actual borders. Considering context also requires designers to address the microclimate conditions within the play area. Designing for climate comfort by mitigating hot and cold pockets, addressing intense sun exposure, and blocking wind corridors will enhance play experience and allow children to be outdoors comfortably and safely for longer periods. Figure 9.3 demonstrates how the vegetation can play a role in modifying the play space microclimate.

Designing for Connectivity Connectivity unifies the space, allowing children to create physical and visual connections within the play environment. Pathways should be designed to promote easy entry into the play space and allow children to access and explore the different play zones within the playground. In general, paths should lead children to spaces. Looping paths promote continuous and fluid movement. Providing a series of pathways with different widths and textured surfaces will also give children the freedom to decide where to explore next. While paths may be multipurpose, creating a separation between pedal traffic for tricycle play and foot traffic should be considered. Figure 9.4 from the Garden City Play Environment shows how paths can be given different textures and colour.

Figure 9.5 is an aerial view of the Garden City Play Environment, showing the connectivity of the design. The looping paths continuously lead to sub-play space in the environment. This play environment has a robust relationship to context, as the pathways lead to existing paths surrounding the play area.

Designing for Clarity Clarity in the play space allows children to recognize the patterns and physical composition of the space. Clarity in design offers a range of play zones that can be easily identified. These zones include messy zones, sand play, water play, tricycle space and designated areas for running and climbing as well as places to cool off, sit down and hang out. Designing for clarity also provides clear space for storage and clean-up of loose materials. Figure 9.6 shows clarity at the Garden City Play Environment. Zones are clearly defined for different types of play and informal seating, and a high point in the play environment offers prospects of the entire space.

Designing for Chance Designing for chance is achieved by offering children elements in the play space to create and build with, manipulate and change, allowing children to participate in the transformation of their own play space. Elements that move, can be used to build with, or that

Figure 9.3  Use of vegetation to address microclimate conditions (from the Seven Cs Informational Guide, image by Kate Stefuik).

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

151

Figure 9.4  Textured pavement in the Garden City Play Environment (Photo: Tasha Sangha).

can be mixed together offer children chance for something to happen. Vegetation (that can withstand tugging), gravel, sand, water, mulch and dirt can be used as creative and imaginative play props. Adding mystery to the play space by designing spaces to look behind, objects to stand on for prospect and spaces to crawl into promotes exploration.

Figure 9.7 shows the mud play area at the Garden City Play Environment.

Designing for Change Designing for change involves creating a play space that is constantly changing in material and spatial composition. The play space

152

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

Figure 9.5  Aerial photo of the Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).

Figure 9.6   Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).

should also provide a range of spaces and subspaces that accommodate different size groups and allow for a diversity of play. Change can be integrated into the ground plane by using different ground surfaces and manipulating the topography to include slopes and mounds. Creating a play environment that is constantly changing by adding materials that transform

over time, such as vegetation, allows children to observe and understand change. Ornamental grasses are versatile plants that add change to the play environment because they grow very quickly every spring and then are cut back in winter. In Figure 9.8 grasses are not pushed to the sides of the play space, but are integrated into the play space.

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

153

Figure 9.7  Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).

Figure 9.8   Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).

Designing for Challenge Challenging elements should be placed throughout the playground for children to explore, master and test their limits. Within the play space, children should be encouraged

to take risks and challenge themselves with elements that allow them to play at height (e.g., structures of varying height, ladders, ropes, nets, bars to hang from), balance (e.g., stepping stones, logs, balance beams) and speed (e.g., flat open spaces for running,

154

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

ball play, cycling, swings). Play elements should be gauged to a range of difficulties, suitable for children with varying personalities and levels of competence. Natural elements like trees provide ideal challenges as they are not predictable and the child must determine if a branch will hold their weight or not.

In Figure 9.9, a felled tree trunk at the Garden City Play Environment provides challenge for this preschooler. In Figure 9.10, a low sprawling tree and wood structure at the Terra Nova Play Environment provides challenge for school-aged children. Figure 9.11 shows a four-metre-high tower at the Terra

Figure 9.9  Garden City Play Environment by Space2Place (Photo: Jeff Cutler).

Figure 9.10  Terra Nova Play Environment by Hapa Collaborative (Photo: Tasha Sangha).

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

155

Figure 9.11  Terra Nova Play Environment Hapa Collaborative (Photo: Tasha Sangha).

Nova Play Environment, which provides challenge for the more daring.

Seven Cs Evaluation For readers interested in applying the Seven Cs principles to an existing play space, Appendix 9.1 contains an evaluation

checklist that can help the user identify strengths and potential improvements for the play space (Herrington, Brunelle, Mountain, & Brussoni, 2015). Originally developed by Julie Mountain using the Seven Cs, it has been expanded and adapted to incorporate the latest research and design principles. Based on this checklist, play spaces can be assigned a maximum score of 135, which

156

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

includes up to 25 points for Character, 25 for Context, 15 for Connectivity, 20 for Clarity, 15 for Chance, 25 for Change and 10 for Challenge. Thus, users can pinpoint specific elements of the Seven Cs that are already being addressed well, or that require additional attention to improve.

CONCLUSION Recent decades have seen a reduction in children’s opportunities for outdoor play and a proliferation of KFC-style play spaces for children in Canada. There are, however, encouraging trends that indicate an interest in promoting children’s outdoor play and designing quality play spaces that incorporate natural materials. In this chapter we have profiled two initiatives in Canada that are beginning to change attitudes towards children’s outdoor play and improve the landscapes designed for their play. The Position Statement on Active Outdoor Play is starting to influence the conversation on children’s outdoor play and has the potential to shape legislative decisions regarding children’s outdoor play. The Seven Cs design guidelines, which address the physical design of outdoor play spaces, have helped Canadian communities provide developmentally rich play environments. It is clear that promoting an approach to children’s play that values access to the outdoors and a high quality play space design requires a multi-pronged effort that addresses society’s social, legal and physical contexts. Activities in Canada illustrate potential approaches that can be adapted to local contexts for promoting necessary change.

REFERENCES Änggård, E. (2011). Children’s gendered and non-gendered play in natural spaces. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(2), 5–33.

Baird, R. A. M. (2015). Thompson v. Corp. of the District of Saanich, 2015 BCSC 1750. Victoria, BC: BC Supreme Court. Retrieved from www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/17/ 2015BCSC1750.htm. Ball, D. J. (2014). Risk management and risk-benefit assessment. Injury Prevention, Supplement 6. Ball, D. J., & Ball-King, L. (2011). Public safety and risk assessment. New York: Routledge. Brunelle, S., Coghlan, R., Herrington, S., & Brussoni, M. (2016). Play worth remembering: Are playgrounds too safe? Children, Youth and Environments, 26(1), 17–36. Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., … Tremblay, M. S. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454. Canadian Standards Association (2014). CAN/ CSA-Z614-14 – Children’s playspaces and equipment (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Canadian Standards Association. Canadian Standards Association (2016). Codes & Standards. Retrieved from www.csagroup. org/services/codes-and-standards/. Cheng, T. A., Bell, J. M., Haileyesus, T., Gilchrist, J., Sugerman, D. E., & Coronado, V. G. (2016). Nonfatal playground-related traumatic brain injuries among children, 2001–2013. Pediatrics, 137(6), e20152721. Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(1), 68–80. Coe, D. P., Flynn, J. I., Wolff, D. L., Scott, S. N., & Durham, S. (2014). Children’s physical activity levels and utilization of a traditional versus natural playground. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(3), 1–15. Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Child Care Licensing Regulation (2007). British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from www. bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/ 332_2007. Corporation of Delta Parks Recreation and Culture Department (2015). Community Initiated Cost Sharing Projects – Community Playgrounds. Delta, BC. Drown, K. K. C., & Christensen, K. M. (2014). Dramatic play affordances of natural and

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

manufactured outdoor settings for preschool-aged children. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 53–77. Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2008). Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Education Research, 23(6), 952–962. Einboden, R., Rudge, T., & Varcoe, C. (2013). Producing children in the 21st century: A critical discourse analysis of the science and techniques of monitoring early child development. Health, 17(6), 549–566. Fagerstrom, T., & Mahoney, K. (2006). Give me a break! Can strategic recess scheduling increase on-task behaviour for first-graders? Ontario Action Researcher, 9, 6. Gaster, S. (1991). Urban children’s access to their neighborhood: Changes over three generations. Environment and Behavior, 23, 70–85. Gill, T. (2014). The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 10–34. Gill, T. (2015). No risk, no reward – liberating the bubble-wrapped generations. In BC Recreation and Parks Association Syposium (p. 6). Victoria, BC: BC Recreation & Parks Association. Gray, C., Gibbons, R., Larouche, R., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., Brussoni, M., … Tremblay, M. S. (2015). 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, 12(6), 6455–6474. Green, J. (1999). From accidents to risk: Public health and preventable injury. Health, Risk & Society, 1(1), 25–39. Haapala, H. L., Hirvensalo, M. H., Laine, K., Laakso, L., Hakonen, H., Kankaanpää, A., … Tammelin, T. H. (2014). Recess physical activity and school-related social factors in Finnish primary and lower secondary schools: Crosssectional associations. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1114. Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group (2015). Position statement on Active Outdoor Play. Retrieved from www.haloresearch.ca/ outdoorplay/. Herrington, S. (2008). Perspectives from the ground: Early Childhood Educators’ perceptions of outdoor play spaces at child care

157

centers. Children, Youth and Environments, 13, 64–87. Herrington, S. (2012). An informational guide for young people’s play spaces. Landscape Architecture CHINA, 2, 42–55. Herrington, S., Brunelle, S., Mountain, J., & Brussoni, M. (2015). 7Cs evaluation for children’s play spaces. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Herrington, S., Lesmeister, C., Nicholls, J., & Stefiuk, K. (2007). Seven C’s: An informational guide to young children’s outdoor play spaces. Vancouver: Consortium for Health, Intervention, Learning and Development (CHILD). Retrieved from www.wstcoast.org/ playspaces/outsidecriteria/7Cs.pdf. Herrington, S., & Nicholls, J. (2007). Outdoor play spaces in Canada: The safety dance of standards as policy. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 128–138. Hofferth, S. L. (2009). Changes in American children’s time – 1997 to 2003. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 6, 26–47. Howard, A. W., Macarthur, C., Rothman, L., Willan, A., & Macpherson, A. K. (2009). School playground surfacing and arm fractures in children: A cluster randomized trial comparing sand to wood chip surfaces. PLoS Medicine, 6(12), e1000195. Hüttenmoser, M. (1995). Children and their living surroundings: Empirical investigation into the significance of living surroundings for the everyday life and development of children. Children’s Environments, 12(4), 403–413. Karsten, L. (2005). It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Children’s Geographies, 3, 275–290. Kochanowski, L., & Carr, V. (2014). Nature playscapes as contexts for fostering selfdetermination. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 146–167. Lavrysen, A., Bertrands, E., Leyssen, L., Smets, L., Vanderspikken, A., & De Graef, P. (2015). Risky-play at school. Facilitating risk perception and competence in young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. [Online] http://doi.org/10.1080/ 1350293X.2015.1102412. Loebach, J. E., & Gilliland, J. A. (2014). Free range kids? Using GPS-derived activity spaces

158

The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

to examine children’s neighborhood activity and mobility. Environment and Behavior, 48(3), 1–33. Lucas, A. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2010). Where do children choose to play on the school ground? The influence of green design. Education 3-13, 38(2), 177–189. Luchs, A., & Fikus, M. (2013). A comparative study of active play on differently designed playgrounds. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13(3), 206–222. Maller, C., & Townsend, M. (2006). Children’s mental health and wellbeing and hands-on contact with nature. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 359–372. Malone, K. (2007). The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled gardens. Environmental Education Research, 13, 513–527. Mountain, J. (2014a). Character building. Nursery World, 7–20 April, 21–24. Mountain, J. (2014b). Clear thinking. Nursery World, 2–15 June, 21–23. Mountain, J. (2014c). In context. Nursery World, 5–18 May, 21–24. Nature Play Western Austalia (undated). 7Cs ‘An informational guide to young children’s outdoor play spaces’. Government of Australia. Retrieved from www.natureplaywa.org. au/7cs-an-informational-guide-to-youngchildren-s-outdoor-play-spaces-2. Nauta, J., Martin-Diener, E., Martin, B. W., van Mechelen, W., & Verhagen, E. (2015). Injury risk during different physical activity behaviours in children: A systematic review with bias assessment. Sports Medicine, 45, 327–336. Nilsen, A. H., & Hägherhäll, C. M. (2012). Impact of space requirements on outdoor play areas in public kindergartens. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 24(2), 8–28. ParticipACTION Canada. (2015). The biggest risk is keeping kids indoors: ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity and Youth. Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from www. participaction.com/report-card-2015/. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2010). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance. Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 35–40. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bohn, C. M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School recess: Implications for education and development. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 51–67. Play Safety Forum (2002). Managing risk in play provision: A position statement. London: National Children’s Bureau. Play Safety Forum (2008). Managing risk in play provision: A position statement. London: Play England. Retrieved from www.playengland.org.uk/resources/managing-risk-in-playprovision-a-position-statement.aspx. Ramstetter, C. L., Murray, R., & Garner, A. S. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517–526. Refshauge, A. D., Stigsdotter, U. K., Lamm, B., & Thorleifsdottir, K. (2013). Evidence-based playground design: Lessons learned from theory to practice. Landscape Research, 40(2), 226–246. Roe, J., & Aspinall, P. (2011). The emotional affordances of forest settings: An investigation in boys with extreme behavioural problems. Landscape Research, 36(5), 535–552. Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2007). Fractures in New Zealand elementary school settings. Journal of School Health, 77(1), 36–40. Sajadi, S. A., & Khoshnevis, A. M. K. (2016). Studying seven criteria of designing outdoor play spaces in some kindergartens of Tehran. International Journal of Biology, Pharmacy and Allied Sciences, 5(1), 306–318. Samborski, S. (2010). Biodiverse or barren school grounds: Their effects on children. Children, Youth and Environments, 20(2), 67–115. Sargisson, R., & McLean, I. G. (2012). Children’s use of nature in New Zealand playgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(2), 144–163. Sherker, S., & Ozanne-Smith, J. (2004). Are current playground safety standards adequate for preventing arm fractures? Medical Journal of Australia, 180(11), 562–565. Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/15174986. Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2012). Meeting the challenges of intensive parenting culture: Gender, risk management and the moral parent. Sociology, 46, 25–40. Spiegal, B., Gill, T. R., Harbottle, H., & Ball, D. J. (2014). Children’s play space and safety management: Rethinking the role of play

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA

equipment standards. SAGE Open, 4(1), 2158244014522075. Tremblay, M. S., Gray, C., Babcock, S., Barnes, J., Bradstreet, C. C., Carr, D., … Brussoni, M. (2015). Position statement on active outdoor play. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6475–6505. UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood (2015). Play. Retrieved from www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/pedal/ downloads/play-report-final-designed.pdf. Vollman, D., Witsaman, R., Comstock, R. D., & Smith, G. A. (2009). Epidemiology of playground equipment-related injuries to children in the United States, 1996–2005. Clinical Pediatrics, 48(1), 66–71. Waite-Stupiansky, S., & Findlay, M. (2001). The fourth R: Recess and its link to learning. The Educational Forum, 66(1), 16–25.

159

Wall, G., & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering? An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender and Society, 26, 508–527. Woolley, H. (2008). Watch this space! Designing for children’s play in public open spaces. Geography Compass, 2(2), 495–512. Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2013). Exploring the relationship between design approach and play value of outdoor play spaces. Landscape Research, 38(1), 53–74. Wridt, P. J. (2004). An historical analysis of young people’s use of public space, parks and playgrounds in New York City. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 86–106. Zelizer, V. A. R. (1985). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. New York: Basic Books.

Approximate shape:

Approximate area (m2):

CHARACTER: Vegetation – Does the vegetation offer visual stimulation? – Are there opportunities for interaction with the vegetation? – Is vegetation used as a play prop?

Name/location of play space:

CHARACTER: Atmosphere – What is the character of the space? – Does this space have an overall sense of softness?

CHARACTER: Build Quality – What condition is the space in (including its features)?

ABOUT THIS SPACE

Time:

Date: Pre-Intervention

Name/location of play space:

No. children accessing the space:

Weather:

Appendix 9.1: 7 Cs evaluation for children’s play space By Susan Herrington, Sara Brunelle, Julie Mountain, Mariana Brussoni

Rating (0–5) 0 = poor 5 = excellent

160 The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

CONTEXT: Views Looking In – Is the space attractive to look at?

CONTEXT: Views Looking Out – Does the play space offer views to the surrounding landscape? – What can children see beyond the play space boundaries?

CONTEXT: Microclimate – Have microclimate conditions been addressed? (i.e. too hot, too cold, too exposed to wind).

CONTEXT: Health and Safety – Is the space secure from traffic and other dangers? – Does the space suffer from vandalism or animal incursion?

CHARACTER: Light Quality – Is light quality balanced? – Are there colour differentials?

CHARACTER: Surface Materials – Is there a range of surface materials in the space? – Are these materials engaging and stimulating? – Do they contribute to an overall sense of softness in the space?

CHARACTER TOTAL:  /25

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA 161

CLARITY: Zones – Are the different zones of play clear? (e.g., messy zones, sand play, water play,   tricycle space)

CLARITY: Design – Is the layout of the play area clear and navigable? – Is the play equipment appropriately placed? (Not dominating the centre of the   play area)

CONNECTIVITY: Moving around the Space – Do the paths loop? – Do the paths allow children to make decisions as to where to go?

CONNECTIVITY: Hierarchy of Pathways – Are there paths that promote movement and exploration of the space? – Do these paths allow safe integration of foot and cycling traffic (if necessary)?

CONNECTIVITY: Entrance & Exits – Is it easy to access the outdoors? – Is indoor and outdoor space connected visually? – Is there a clear entrance and exit to the space?

CONTEXT: Boundaries – Are there clear physical boundaries that are stimulating and engaging? – Where possible, do the boundaries create a link with the surrounding landscape?

CONNECTIVITY TOTAL:  /15

CONTEXT TOTAL:  /25

162 The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning

CHANCE: Messy Zones – Are there areas for water play? – Are there places to play in the dirt? – Are there sand play areas? – Can children make mud?

CHANCE: Loose Play Material Are there natural materials in the play space to create and build with, manipulate, and move throughout the play space?

CHANCE: Mystery Are there areas and materials that promote exploration? (e.g., look behind, stand on for prospect, crawl into, look up into)

CLARITY: Logistics – How easy is it to set up and pack away the space? – Is there ample storage?

CLARITY: Seating – Are there spaces where children can sit (including informal seating, boulders)? – Are there comfortable places for adults to sit adjacent to the play space?

CHANCE TOTAL:  /15

CLARITY TOTAL:  /20

OUTDOOR PLAY SPACES IN CANADA 163

CHANGE: Materials – Do the materials in the space change with the seasons?

CHANGE: Ground Plane – Are there changes in the topography that make space stimulating and engaging?   (e.g., mounds, steps, ramps, undulating surfaces, ditches, decks, terraces).

CHANGE: Accommodates a Range of Ages/Developmental Stages – Are there spaces that accommodate different age groups? (